## Appendix C

Attachment 1 NMFS Biological OpinionMr. Joseph Christop Regional Supervisor

Minerals Managem

1201 Elmwood Par1

New Orleans, LA 7

Dear Mr. Christophc

This constitutes the 

## :

on our review of the

Act (ESA) section 7 Gas Leasing Progra

Mexico. The biolo;

actions are not like1

under the jurisdictic
However, NMFS a1

Take Statement (IT prudent measures vt

We look forward to cooperation to ensur designated critical h; action, as well as adc

you to track the stat1 fishery biologist, at (

Enclosures

cc: F - Lindow

File: 15 14-22.0.1

Ref FlSERl2006, r

t Service

3oulevard

23-2394 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NA-rIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office

263 1 3th 

## venue South

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (727) 824-53 12 FAX 824-5309



### JUN 29 2007

tional Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) biological opinion (opinion) based [inerals Management Service's (MMS) request for formal Endangered Species ,nsultation on the effects of the Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and (2007-2012) in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of

:al opinion concludes that the five-year leasing program and its associated

to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species

of NMFS or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. 2ipates incidental take of sea turtle species and has issued an Incidental

pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. This ITS contains reasonable and

1 implementing terms and conditions to help minimize this take.

operation with you on a pile driving study and workshop, and our continued

he conservation of our threatened and endangered marine species and

itat. We have enclosed other statutory requirements that may apply to this

ional information on NMFS' Public Consultation Tracking System to allow

of ESA consultations. If you have any questions, please contact Kyle Baker, !7) 824-53 12, or by e-mail at kyle.baker@noaa.gov.

Regional Administrator

### Marine Mammal ~rolection Act (MMPA) Recommendations: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 procbss does not authorize incidental takes of listed or non-listed marine

mammals. If such takes may occur, an incidental take authorization under MMPA section 101 (a)(5) is necessary. ontact Ken Hollingshead of our IVMFS Headquarters' Protected Resources

staff at (30 1) 7 1 3 for more information on MMPA permitting procedures. Additional

Essential Fish ~abitdt (EFH) Recommendations: 

### In addition to its protected species/critical

habitat consultation iequirements with NMFS' Protected Resources Division (PRD) pursuant to
section 7 of the ESA prior to proceeding with the proposed action the action agency must also

consult 

### with NMFS' Habitat Conservation Division (HCD) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservatio 

# 1

and Management Act's (MSA) requirements for essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation (16 U.S.C. 1855 (b)(2) and 50 CFR 600.905-.930, subpart 

### K). The action agency should also e sure that the applicant understands the ESA and EFH processes; that ESA and EFH consultatio s are separate, distinct, and guided by different statutes, goals, and time lines for responding o the action agency; and that the action agency will (and the applicant may) receive separate con 

# !

ultation correspondence on NMFS letterhead fiom HCD regarding their

concerns andlor finalbzing EFH consultation. Gonsiderations for ESA Section 7 Consultations (Revised 12-6-2005)

Site." From the "Choose Agency

district. At "Enter Agency Permit

year, hyphen, number. The COE is in the to PCTS-compatible "ORM." An example

1. For the Jacksonville District, which has already converted to ORM, application numbers should be entered as SAJ (hyphen), followed by 4-digit year by permit application numeric identifier with no preceding zeros.

SAJ-2005-12345. Public Consultation

by Corps districts that have not yet made the the 9-digit numeric identifier, or convert the

number to 9 numeric digits by deleting all letters, hyphens,

4-digit format (e.g., -04 to 2004); and adding additional

to make a total of 9 numeric digits. E-g., AL05-982-F

converts to 200500982; MS05-04401 -A converts to 200504401. PCTS questions should be

directed to Eric Ha at Eric.FIawk@110aa.gov. Requests for usemame and password should be directed to April W lstencrofi 

### (PCTSUsersupport@noaa.gov). 

# :.

-- 

### Trackinn System (PCTS) Guidance: PCTS is an online query system allowing federal agencies and U.S. Army Corps of EngineersS(COE) permit applicants to track

the status of NMFS donsu~tations under ESA section 7 and under MSA sections 305(b)2 and 305(b)(4): Essential ish Habitat. Access PCTS via: w-~~v.mfs.noaa.~ov/pcts. Federal agencies 

# t

are required to enter n agency-specific usemame and password to query the Federal Agency

Site. The Corps Pe 

# 4 it Site allows COE permit applicants to check on the current status of

Clean Water Act seclion 404 permit actions for which NMFS has conducted an ESA section 

### 7

consultation with the, COE since the beginning of the 2001 fiscal year (no password needed).

### Endangered Species Act 

### - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion

Action Agency: 

# ~ Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service

Consulting Age cy: 

# t National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Activity:



### Office, Protected Resources Division Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities: Five-Year Leasing

Plan for Western and Central Planning Areas 2007-2012

Approved by: 

# 1

Date Issued: 

# ~ tree, Ph.D., Regional Administrator Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office

St. Petersburg, Florida

TABLE OF CONTENTS



# ..................................................................................................... 2

THE PROPOSED ACTION



# ................................................. 3



### BE AFFECTED



# ....................................... 26



# ........................ IN THE ACTION AREA 33



### 10 CONCLUSION



# ....................................................................................................... 99

11 INCIDEN AL TAKE STATEMENT (ITS)



# ........................................................ 99 

# t

APPENDICES



# ............................................................................................................... 1271 INTRODUCTION

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) is the primary Act giving MMS its regulatory authority to establish policies and procedures for managing the oil and natural gas resources of the Outer Continental Sh elf (OCS). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 expanded and further defined the MMS role in energy development. Enacted on August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act amended Sec tion 8 of the OCSLA to authorize the Department of the Interior (DOI) to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the OCS for the development and support of energy reso urces from sources other than oil and gas and to allow for alternate uses of existing facilities on the OCS. The Energy Policy Act grants MMS new responsibilities over Fede ral offshore renewable energy and related uses of the OCS. Although no projects are planned at this time, MMS is evaluating the potential of renewable en ergy resources on the OCS.

The OCSLA requires DOI to prepare a five-yea r program that specifies the size, timing

and location of areas to be assessed for Federa l offshore natural gas and oil leasing. It is the role of DOI to ensure that the U.S. govern ment receives fair market value for acreage made available for leasing and that any oil and gas activities conser ve resources, operate safely, and take maximum steps to protect th e environment. The last five-year program expires on June 30, 2007. MMS has formulated the next five-year program for 2007- 2012, including all leaseable U.S. Federal wate rs in the Central Planning Area (CPA) and the Western Planning Area (WPA). The Gu lf of Mexico (GOM) Region of MMS has developed one EIS and a biological assessment fo r the eleven lease sales scheduled in the GOM under the 2007-2012 five-year program.

Recent Lease Sale Consultation History The MMS has consulted with NMFS on five-year GOM oil and gas activities in the past. The most recent 5-year (2003-2007) consulta tion was formally requested by MMS in April 2002. A draft biological opinion was sent from NMFS to MMS in September 2002, and the final biological opinion wa s issued to MMS in November 2002.

The MMS has petitioned NMFS for programmatic rulemaking under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for Explosive Removal of Structures (EROS). This rulemaking also includes a programmatic section 7 consultation with NMFS under the ESA on these activities. The NMFS Proposed Ru le for Explosive Removal of Structures operations was published in the Federa l Register on April 7, 2006, and the ESA biological opinion was issued on August 28, 2006. Thus, EROS activities are not included in this consultation as part of the proposed action, but as part of the

environmental baseline.

Consultation History MMS submitted a biological assessment (BA) and request for section 7 consultation under the ESA on the OCS Leasing Program for 2007-2012 on June 5, 2006. In a letter dated July 28, 2006, NMFS requested additiona l information regard ing the effects of pipelines and accidental oil spills on Gulf stur geon critical habitat, the time of year of construction activities, pile dr iving, and other noise associated with the proposed action.

2On December 21, 2006, MMS resubmitted a BA. Subsequent discussions through e-mail exchanges and teleconferences were held to gather additional information and discuss potential impacts resulting from vessel strikes, oil spills, and construction activities on the

OCS. NMFS initiated consu ltation with MMS on May 1, 2007.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

MMS is the administrative agency responsible for the mineral leasing of submerged OCS lands and for the supervision of offshore ope rations after lease issuance. The Western and Central GOM are currently major oil- and gas-producing areas. The proposed action is for the exploration, development and producti on, and associated activities as a result of

MMS lease sales of available OCS blocks in the WPA and CPA. Eleven area wide oil and gas lease sales in the WP A and CPA of the GOM OCS ar e scheduled during the fiveyear period. Under the proposed five-year pr ogram, two sales would be held each year, one in the WPA and one in the CPA (Table 1) . The purpose of the l ease sale portion of the proposed action is to offer for lease those areas currently available for lease that may contain economically recoverable oil and natura l gas resources. The proposed lease sales will provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid upon and lease acreage in the GOM OCS for the exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas.

Table 1. Proposed WPA and CPA GOM OCS Lease Sales for 2007-2012.

Lease Sale Number GOM Planning Area Year of Lease Sale

204 WPA 2007

205 CPA 2007

206 CPA 2008

207 WPA 2008

208 CPA 2009

210 WPA 2009

213 CPA 2010

215 WPA 2010

216 CPA 2011

218 WPA 2011

222 CPA 2012

2.1 Action Area The action area of the project incl udes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the action, and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The

action area is considered to include the Fede ral OCS waters in the WPA and CPA and all

activities associated with th e exploration, development, and production of those areas. The Federal OCS waters in the GOM begin 10 mi offshore of Florida; 3 mi offshore of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Al abama; and 10 mi offshore of Texas; and extend to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The action area includes these waters as well as the coastal areas, ports, airspace, a nd waterways used by transport vessels related to the proposed action.

3The northern boundary of the CPA is defi ned by the Federal-State boundary offshore Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (Figur e 1). The eastern boundary of the CPA is defined by the offshore boundary between Alabama and Florida, proceeding southeasterly to 26.19°N. latitude, thence sout hwesterly to 25.6°N. latitude. The western boundary of the CPA is defined by the offs hore boundary between Texas and Louisiana, proceeding southeasterly to 28.43°N. latit ude, thence south southwesterly to 27.49°N. latitude, thence south southeasterly to 25.80°N. latitude. The southern boundary of the CPA is defined by the continental shelf boundary with Mexico as established by the "Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of

the United Mexican States on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Western GOM Beyond 200 Nautical Mile s," which took effect in January 2001, and by the limit

of the U.S. EEZ in the area east of the con tinental shelf boundary with Mexico. The CPA consists of approximately 66.3 million acres (ac), of which approximately 34.8 million ac are not currently leased. The CPA is located from 4.8 to 354 kilometers (km) offshore in water depths ranging from 4 to 3,400 meters (m ). A typical lease sale in the CPA is projected to yield 0.776-1.292 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 3.236-5.229 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas. The en tire CPA will be considered for possible leasing except:

• blocks that were formerly included within the Eastern Planning Area (EPA) and are within 100 mi of the Florida coast;

• blocks that were formerly included w ithin the EPA and are under an existing Presidential withdrawal through the y ear 2012 as well as subject to annual congressional moratoria;

• blocks that are beyond the U.S. EEZ in the area known as th e northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and

• whole and partial blocks th at lie within the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the continental shelf boundary between the United States and Mexico.

The Central GOM Sale 205 area is the porti on of the above-described CPA that was contained in the original Eastern GOM Sa le 181 area, excluding blocks within 100 mi

from the Florida coast. The Central GOM Sale 205 area consists of approximately 3.5 million ac, of which approximately 2.7 million ac are not currently leased. This is the only sale currently scheduled in the Five-Yea r Program that is not area-wide. Central GOM Sale 205 is projected to yield 0.115-0.149 BBO and 0.430-0.557 tcf of gas.

The western and northern boundaries of th e WPA are defined by the Federal-State boundary offshore of Texas (Figure 1). Th e eastern boundary begins at the offshore boundary between Texas and Louisiana and proc eeds southeasterly to 28.43°N latitude, thence south-southwesterly to 27.49°N latit ude, thence south southeasterly to 25.80°N latitude. The southern boundary of the WP A is defined by the maritime boundary with Mexico that was established by the " Treat y Between the Government of the United

States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States on the Delimitation

of the Continental Shelf in the Wester n GOM Beyond 200 Nautical Miles," which took effect in January 2001. The WPA available co nsists of approximately 28.7 million ac, of which approximately 17.8 million ac are curren tly unleased. The WPA is located from

4Figure 1. GOM oil and gas leasing planning areas.

14 to 357 km offshore in water depths rangi ng from 8-3,000 m. A typical lease sale in the WPA is projected to yield 0.242-0.423 BBO and 1.644-2.647 tcf of gas. The entire WPA will be considered for possible leasing except:

• whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and

• whole and partial blocks th at lie within the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the continental shelf boundary between the United States and Mexico.

2.2 Project Activities and Operations The annual activity projections (Table 2) ar e estimates based on projected exploration and development activities, and impact-produ cing factors. These scenarios are only approximate because of future factors such as the contemporary economic marketplace, but represent the best assumptions and estimates of a set of future conditions that are considered reasonably foreseeable. Although the proposed action incl udes only proposed lease sales for the 2007-2012 five-year program , MMS bases estimates for all activities that are projected to occur from past, propos ed, and future lease sales during the annual analysis period.

2.2.1 Seismic SurveyingGeophysical seismic surveys are performed to obtain information on surface and nearsurface geology and on subsurface geologic form ations. The MMS recently completed a programmatic EA (PEA) (U.S. Dept. of the In terior, Minerals Mana gement Service 2004) on geological and geophysical (G&G) activ ities on the GOM OCS, and is seeking regulations governing the harassm ent and nonserious injury of several species of marine mammals, including sperm whales, under the Ma rine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

5An MMPA petition package for G&G seismi c operations, including an environmental assessment (EA), was sent to NMFS in December 2002. A petition was revised and

NMFS issued a Notice of Intent in the Fede ral Register in November 2004. Rulemaking under the MMPA and a programmatic section 7 consultation under the ESA will follow completion of an EIS. The PEA includes a description of seismic surveying technologies and operations and is incorpor ated by reference. Current ly, MMS implements seismic survey mitigation measures for marine mammals and sea turtles through term and

conditions and conservation recommendations of previous lease sale biological opinions in the GOM (MMS NTL 2007-G02, APPENDIX A).

Typical seismic surveying operations tow an array of airguns and a streamer (signal receiver cable) behind the vessel 5-10 m ( 16-33 ft) below the sea surface. Piston-type airguns are used to release compressed air to create impulses. The airgun array produces a burst of underwater sound by releasing co mpressed air into the water column that creates an acoustical energy pulse. Depending on survey type and depth to the target formations, the release of compressed air every couple of seconds creates a regular series of strong acoustic impulses separated by sile nt periods lasting 7-16 seconds. Airgun arrays are designed to focus the sound en ergy downward through the water column. Acoustic (sound) signals are reflected off the subsurface sedimentary layers and recorded near the water surface by hydrophones spaced within streamer cables. These streamer cables are often 3 mi (5 km) or greater in length. Vessel speed is typically 4.5-6 knots (about 4-8 mph) with gear deployed. The 3D surveys carried out by seismic vendors can

consist of several hundred OCS blocks. Multiple-source and multiple-streamer technologies are used for 3D seismic surveys. A typical 3D survey might employ a dual array of 18 guns per array. Each array might emit a 3,000-in 3 burst of compressed air at 2,000 pounds per square inch, generating ap proximately 4,500 kilojoule of acoustic energy for each burst. At 10 m (33 ft) from the source, the pressure experienced is approximately ambient pressure plus 1 atmos phere. The streamer array might consist of 6-8 parallel cables, each 6,000-8,000 m (19,685- 26,247 ft) long, spaced 75 m (246 ft)

apart.

High-resolution seismic survey s collect data on surficial geology used to identify potential shallow geologic hazards for engineering and site planning for bottom-founded structures. They are also used to id entify environmental resources such as chemosynthetic community habitat. Deep-pen etration, seismic surveys obtain data about geologic formations greater than 10,000 m (32,800 ft) below the seafloor. High-energy, marine seismic surveys include both 2D and 3D surveys. Data from 2D/3D surveys are used to map structural features to identify potential hydrocarbon traps.

Approximately 400-800 blocks would be surv eyed by deep seismic operations in the WPA, and approximately 1,000-2,000 blocks in th e CPA from the proposed lease sales. For postlease seismic surveys, it is projected proposed lease sale in the WPA would result in about 20 VSP operations and about 2,000 mi surveyed by high -resolution seismic during the life of the proposed action. Propos ed lease sales in th e CPA would result in about 30 VSP operations and 3,000-4,000 mi su rveyed by high-resolution seismic during the 40-year life of the leases.

6MMS estimates that seismic surveys are projec ted to follow the same trend as exploration activities, which are projected to peak in 2008-2010, steadily decline until 2027, and remain relatively steady throughout the second ha lf of the 40-year lease periods. During the first 2-4 years, it is projected an nually there would be 95-130 VSP operations, 12,500-16,500 miles surveyed by high-resolution seismic, and 1,500-3,000 blocks surveyed by deep seismic. During the second half of the lease pe riods, it is projected annually there would be 60-70 VSP ope rations, 6,200-8,300 mi surveyed by highresolution seismic, and 1,200-2,500 blocks surveyed by deep seismic.

2.2.2 Construction In addition to various pieces of support equipm ent used in construction, such as vessels and cranes, pile driving is the primary met hod by which fixed structur es are attached to the seafloor and provide stabilit y for other support structures. Classified as either impact hammers or vibratory hammers, the design of the hammer assembly varies depending upon the medium powering the system; however, most assemblies contain a specialized control unit, piston, ram, and anvil. The impact hammer systems used for OCS-related

work

Table 2. Five-year annual projections in the Western and Central Planning Areas.
Central Planning Area Western Planning Area
Oil (Bbbl) 0.8-0.9 0.1-0.2 Gas (tcf) 3.4-3.5 1.5-1.7

Platforms Installed 108-114 41-48 Exploration and Delineation Wells 188-263 107-156 Production Development Wells 714-756 199-225 Non-Producing Development Wells 107-113 30-34 Vessels (round trips) 187,000–195,000 38,000-43,000 Helicopter (Take Offs/Landings) 1,000,000 500,000 Pipelines (km) 1,200 500

predominantly utilize steam, pneumatic, or hydr aulic assemblies. Most of the steam and pneumatic systems used in the GOM are limited to surface operations and have energy outputs (torque) ranging from 15,000-60,000 ft/l bs (20-82 kilonewton meters (kNm)). Hydraulic impact hammer systems can be used in both surface and sub-sea operations and most generally range from 11,000-370,000 ft/lbs (15-500 kNm). Almost all vibratory hammer systems use hydraulic power and due to their configuration, they can be used for both surface and sub-sea operations.

Operators determine the type and size of p ile driving equipment they require based upon the dimensions and design of the object being driven, water depths, equipment configuration (surface vs. sub-sea), sedimen t/substrate types, and the nature of the operations being conducted. Sediment types are varied in the GOM, but for shallow

seabed activities such as th ese they are generally classi fied as consisting of muds (directly off river deltas/outlets), clay s (mostly from the Louisiana-Texas border westward), and unconsolidated sands or silt (most of the shelf of the Northern GOM).

7Each sediment type offers differing levels of friction that must be overcome to allow the pile to penetrate to a suffici ent depth. There are two prim ary pile-driving operations on the GOM OCS: 1) the setting of casing conductors (also know as drive pipe ) for drilling operations; and 2) pile emplacement for the seab ed securing of oil and gas structures and

facilities.

Casing Conductor (Drive Pipe) Installation Due to the frequency of exploratory and development drilling operations on the GOM OCS, the greatest number of p ile-driving operations involve th e setting or installation of casing conductors. Most casi ng conductors range in diamet er from 12-36 in and have

wall thicknesses that run from 1⁄4-3⁄4 in and are generally driven into the substrate until the

conductor “meets refusal” or cannot be dr iven further without damage. Conductor casings can also be jetted into the seabed ; however, the ease of m obilization of hammer drivers coupled with their speed of penetration, minimizes th e use of jetting equipment, which requires more time to deploy and is often unviable due to water depth and sediment type. Most casing conductors drivi ng operations occur in water depths <200 m (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Current well distribution in the Western and Central Planning Areas.

Structure/Facility Pile Installation Pile-driving operations are al so conducted during oil a nd gas structure/facility installations on the GOM OCS. Structure p iles are generally forg ed or rolled-sheet constructed steel pipes that range in diameter from 24-84 in and have wall thicknesses that run from 1⁄2-2 in. The pile s are inserted into the legs of the platform jackets, along the inner wall of a caisson, or into sleeves configured into skirt bracings or seafloor templates for structures in certain deepwate r/unstable environments . As with conductor casings, piles are generally driven into the s ubstrate until it “meets refusal” or reaches a sufficient depth to ensure stability. Once set to the proper depth/refusa l, the pile is then welded or grouted to the jacket leg, caisson, or sleeve to affix the faci lity to the seabed. Over the last 10 years, an average of 137 stru ctures were installed annually in the Central

8and Western GOM with the majority concentrated on the shelf in water depths less than 200 m (Figure 3).

2.2.3 Development and Production Drilling A production well is drilled to exploit a discovered or known hydrocarbon field. Production wells can collectively be termed development wells. Production wells may be drilled from movable structures, such as jack-up rigs with fixed bottom-supported structures, vertically floating moored struct ures, floating production facilities (often called semi-submersibles), and drillships ( dynamically positioned drilling vessels). The type of production structure installed at a site depends mainly on water depth. The number of wells per structure varies accord ing to the type of production structure used, the prospect size, and the drilling/producti on strategy deployed for the drilling program and for resource conservation. Systems us ed to produce hydrocarbons can be fixed, floating, or sub-sea in deeper waters.

Figure 3. Current platform distribution in the Western and Central Planning Areas.

2.2.4 Production Platforms Offshore platforms are common structures used in the development of offshore oil and gas resources. The purpose of a platform is to house production and drilling equipment and living quarters for personnel (on manned pl atforms). A platform consists of two major components: an underwater jacket or tower and an above water deck. Platforms

are fabricated onshore and then towed to an offshore location for inst allation. Facilities where platforms are fabricated are called platform fabrication yards. Production operations at fabrication yards include the cutting and welding of steel components and the construction of living quarters and other structures , as well as the assembly of platform components. Fixed platform fabrica tion can be subdivided in to two major tasks: jacket fabrication and deck fabrication. Plat form structures are transported offshore and installation may take place over a period of a week to a month at the beginning of a

9platform's 20- to 40-year production life. Derrick barges may be used to upright and position structures. Moorings a nd anchors are usually attached to keep the structure on station. Many platforms require that piles be driven to whic h the platform is attached by welding the components together. Comm issioning activities i nvolve all of the interconnecting and testing of the st ructure's modular components.

Several types of production systems are used for offshore oil and gas development in the WPA and CPA, and types vary by water depth in which the structures may be found. A fixed platform is the most commonly used type of production system in the northern GOM. A fixed platform is a large skeletal structure exte nding from the bottom of the

ocean to above the water level. It consists of a metal jacket that is attached to the ocean bottom with the piles, and a deck that accommodates drilling and production equipment and living quarters. Fixed platforms are typica lly installed in water depths up to 1,500 ft. A compliant tower is similar to a fixed platform; however, the underwater section is not a jacket but a narrow, flexible tower that, becau se of the flexibility of its structure, can move around in the horizontal dimension, th ereby withstanding significant wave and wind impact. Compliant towers are typically installed in water depth from 1,000 to 2,000 ft. Tension and mini-tension leg platforms do not have skeletal structures extending all the way to the ocean floor. Instead, they cons ist of floating structures that are kept in place by steel tendons attached to the ocean floor . Tension leg platforms can be used in different water depth ranges, up to 4,000 ft. A spar platform (a floating caisson) consists of a large vertical hull that is moored to the ocean floor with up to 20 lines. Above the hull sits the deck with produc tion equipment and living quarters. At present, spar platforms are used in water depths up to 3,000 ft; however, present technology allows

installation in waters as deep as 7,500 ft.

A floating production system consists of a semi -submersible unit that is kept stationary either by anchoring with wire ropes and chains or by the use of rotating thrusters, which self propel the semi-submersible unit. Floating production systems are suited for deepwater production in water depths up to 7,500 ft. A sub-sea system consists of a single sub-sea well or several wells producing ei ther to a nearby platform or to a distant production facility through a pipeline and mani fold system. At present, sub-sea systems are used in water depths exceeding 5,000 ft. A floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) system consists of a large ve ssel that houses production equipment. It collects oil from several sub-sea wells, stores the oil, and periodical ly offloads it to a shuttle tanker. FPSO systems are particularly useful in development of remote oil fields where pipeline infrastruc ture is not available.

2.2.5 Pipelines Pipelines are the primary method used to transport a variety of liquid and gaseous products between OCS production sites and onsho re facilities servicing the GOM. These products include unprocessed (b ulk) oil and gas; mixtures of gas and condensate; mixtures of gas and oil; processed condensate, oil, or gas; produced water; methanol; and a variety of chemicals used by the OCS industry offshore. It is expected that pipelines from most of the new offshore production faci lities will connect to the existing pipeline infrastructure. Almost 100 percent of produced oil from a lease in the WPA or the CPA,

10out to 800 m, is expected to be transporte d via pipelines. MMS estimates pipelines will continue to be the primary means of transpor ting oil in the future, with approximately 92 to 99 percent of the oil in the WPA, and 95 to 99 per cent of the oil in the CPA transported through pipelines.

Pipelines in the GOM are designated as either gathering lines or trunklines. Gathering lines are typically shorter segm ents of small-diameter pipelines that transport the well stream from one or more wells to a production facility or from a production facility to a central facility serving one or several leases (e.g., a tr unkline or central storage or processing terminal). Trunklines are typically large-diameter pipelines that receive and mix similar production products and transport th em from the production fields to shore. A trunkline may contain production from ma ny discovery wells drilled on several hydrocarbon fields. The OCS -related pipelines near shor e and onshore may merge with pipelines carrying materials produced in Stat e territories for transport to processing

facilities or to connections with pipelines located farther inland.

2.2.6 Vessel Traffic Barges may be used offshore to transport oi l and gas, supplies such as chemicals or drilling mud, or wastes between shore bases a nd offshore platforms. Barges are non-selfpropelled vessels that must be accompanied by one or more tugs. Because of this, barge transport is usually constrained to shallow wa ters of the GOM, clos e to the shoreline. Barging is used very infrequently as an inte rim transport system prior to the installation of a pipeline system. About 1 percent of th e oil produced during the proposed actions in

less than 60 m in both the WPA and the CPA is expected to be barged to shore over the 40-year life of the leases.

Shuttle tanker transport of OC S-produced oil is expected to be part of industry activities with 1 to 43 percent of oil transport in th e CPA and 1 to 59 percent in the WPA. The expectation over the 2007-2046 life time of the proposed lease sale s, is 1 to 5 percent and 1 to 8 percent, respectively. Floating produc tion, storage, and o ffloading (FPSO) systems and associated tanker transport of OCS-produc ed oil may use shuttle tankers or selfpropelled barges for transport to shore.

Service vessels are one of the primary mode s of transporting pers onnel between service bases and offshore platforms, drilling rigs, derrick barges, and pipeline construction barges. In addition to offshore personnel, service vessels carry car go (i.e., freshwater, fuel, cement, barite, liquid drilling fluids, t ubulars, equipment, and food) offshore. In general, the new type of vessels built will continue to be larger, deeper drafted, and more technologically advanced for deepwater activities.

Service vessels that support various require ments of offshore oil and gas activities are categorized into supply, crew, and utility vessels. Large supply boats (50 to 70 m in length) with a capacity of 300 tons and draf t of 3.5 m when loaded make up a large proportion of service vessels in the GOM. Crew and utility boats are about 30 m in length. Service vessels utilized in deep water include o ffshore supply vessels, fast supply vessels, and anchor-handling towing supply/m ooring vessels; vessels employed in deep11water operations typically are la rger and/or faster than t hose usually supporting oil and gas operations in shallower wa ter closer to shore. Compared to shelf-bound service vessels, deepwater service vessels have impr oved hull designs (increased efficiency and speed). Service vessels primarily used in deep water are offshore supply vessels, fast supply vessels, and anchor-handling/towing/ supply/mooring vessels. Other deepwater specialty service vessels incl ude well stimulation vessels. The offshore supply vessel and anchor-handling and anchor-handling/towing/supply/mooring ve ssels carry the same type of cargo (i.e., freshwater, fuel, cement, barite , liquid drilling fluids, tubulars, equipment, food, and miscellaneous supplies) but have diffe rent functions. As the number of deepwater development facilities lo cated greater distances from sh ore increases, larger supply vessels with greater cargo carrying capacities and fast crew boats are being used.

A trip is considered the transportation from a service base to an offshore site and back (a round trip). There are approxi mately eight round trips per we ek in support of drilling an exploration well and six round trips per week in support of drilling a development well. A platform is estimated to require one to two vessel trips per week over its 25-year production life. All trips are assumed to orig inate from the service base. Using some assumptions about the number of vessel cr ew members per boat, number of trips to existing as well as projected platforms, the number of development wells, the number of trips per well per week, transit times, and di stances to sites from service bases, etc., the total number of service vessel trips has been estimated by MMS to be between 225,000- 238,000 round trips annually, with most trips occurring in the CPA.

The five-year projections for annual ve ssel round trips are estimated to be 187,000- 195,000 in the CPA, with 4,627,000-5,887,000 service-ve ssel trips estimated to occur in the CPA over the 40-year OCS Program. In the WPA, five-year projections for annual vessel round trips is estimated to be 38,000-43,000, with 2,087,000-2,722,000 round trips estimated to occur over 40 years.

2.2.7 Helicopters Helicopters are another mode of transpor ting personnel between service bases and offshore platforms, drilling rigs, derrick ba rges, and pipeline construction barges. Helicopters are routinely used for crew ch anges and at other times to transport management and special service personnel to offshore exploration and production sites. In addition, equipment and supplies are some times transported. Deepwater operations require helicopters that travel farther and faster, carry mo re personnel, are all-weather capable, and have lower operating costs.

In the past, helicopter activity scenarios were based on roun d trips. However, industry needs and uses of helicopters has been cha nging and the flight logistics often involve numerous stops, and completing a true round trip (back to the original location) may take days or longer. Helicopter activity scenarios are now given in flight segments; that is, a take-off to a landing, regardless of length. In areas of heavy industr y activity, helicopter segments can be a matter of minutes, hopping from one structure to the next. The projected annual number of helicopter segm ents in the CPA and WPA combined is 1,500,000. Approximately 1,000,000 of these would occur in the CPA and 500,000 in

12the WPA. When calculated by depth, the shallowest depths (0-60 m) will have over 80 percent of the helicopter ac tivity over the 40-year OCS Progr am in the CPA. In the WPA, for the same 40-year OCS Program timefr ame, shallow areas are projected to have over 75 percent of the helicopter activity.

2.3 Proposed Harm Avoidance Measures for Protected Species MMS proposes the Protected Species Stipulation that is designed to minimize or avoid potential adverse impacts to federally pr otected species (e.g., sea turtles, marine mammals, and other listed species). The s tipulations (or harm avoidance measures) considered in this biological opinion a ppear in the Appendice s, and include the following:

1. The MMS requires that all seismic surveys employ mandatory mitigation measures including the use of a 500-m “exclusion zone”, ramp-up and shutdown procedures, visual monitoring, and reporting. Seismic operations must immediately cease when whales are de tected within the 500-m exclusion zone. Ramp-up procedures and seismic surveys may be initiated only during daylight unless alternate monitori ng methods approved by MMS are used.

2. The MMS will condition all permits issued to lessees and their operators to require them to collect and remove flot sam resulting from activities related to exploration, development, and production of this lease.

3. The MMS will require that vessel operators and crews watch for marine mammals and sea turtles, reduce vess el speed to 10 knots or less when assemblages of cetaceans are observed, and maintain a distance of 90 m or greater from whales and a distance of 45 m or greater from small cetaceans

and sea turtles.

4. The MMS will condition all permits issued to lessees and their operators to require them to post signs in prominen t places on all vessels and platforms

used as a result of activities relate d to exploration, development, and production of this lease detailing the reasons (legal and ecological) why the

release of debris must be eliminated.

5. The MMS will require lessees and operat ors to instruct offshore personnel to immediately report all sightings and locat ions of injured or dead protected species (marine mammals and sea tur tles) to the appropriate stranding network. If oil and gas indus try activity is responsibl e for the injured or dead animals (e.g., because of a vessel strike), the responsible parties should remain

available to assist the st randing network. If the injury or death is caused by a vessel collision, the responsible party must notif y MMS within 24 hours of the

strike.

6. The MMS will require oil- spill contingency planning to identify important habitats, including designated critical habitat, used by listed species (e.g., sea

13turtle nesting beaches and piping plover critical habitat) and will require the strategic placement of spill cleanup equipment to be used only by personnel trained in less intrusive cleanup t echniques on beach and bay shores.

Notice to Lessees and Operators

The MMS also issues Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) in order to clarify, describe, or interpret regulation or OCS standard s. The pertinent NTLs considered in this biological opinion, and that desc ribe in greater detail some of the above-mentioned lease stipulations, include:

1. “Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program” (NTL 2007-G02, APPENDIX A).

2. “Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Prot ected Species Reporting” (NTL 2007-G04, APPENDIX B);

3. “Marine Trash and Debris Awarene ss and Elimination” (NTL 2007-G03, APPENDIX C); and

3 LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT

Table 3. Listed species and critical habitat in the action area.

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Marine Mammals sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus endangered

Sea Turtles

leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii endangered

hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata endangered green sea turtle a Chelonia mydas threatened loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta threatened

Fish Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus

desotoi threatened

Critical Habitat Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus

desotoi Unit 8

a Green turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.

The endangered and threatened species, and designated critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS that a ppear in Table 3 occur in the action area. NMFS has designated critical habitat for th e Gulf sturgeon in the action area.

143.1 Effects to Listed Species Considered and Discounted NMFS has analyzed several aspects of th e proposed action during consultation with MMS for potential impacts to listed species a nd their habitats, and activities determined not to affect any listed species or designated critical habita t in the action area have been excluded from further analysis. Activities that may affect listed species or designated

critical habitat were considered further for their potential to adversely affect listed species, and those determined to be insignifi cant and/or discountable are discussed in the following subsections. In addition to the direct effects of the action on listed species, this

section also assesses the indir ect effects of the proposed acti on, and the potential for any interrelated or interdependent effects of other activities (50 CFR 402.02). Indirect effects are those that are caused later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur.

Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend upon the larger action for their justifi cation. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the acti on under consideration (50 CFR 402.02). For activities that could potentially result in take, the proposed harm avoi dance measures were also

assessed for their effectiveness at reduci ng the likelihood of impacts to discountable levels, or by reducing the magnitude of potential impacts to insignificant levels.

3.1.1 Vessel Strikes and Sperm Whales Increased traffic from support vessels involved in survey, service, or shuttle functions could increase the probability of collisions between vessels and sperm whales. It is estimated that a maximum of 238,000 vessel ro und trips will occur annually, of which 55 percent are expected to occur in sperm whale habitat for vessels transiting in water depths greater than 200 m. Adverse r eactions by whales to vessel ac tivity have been recorded,

and all are vulnerable to collisions with vesse ls, with incidents of strikes with juveniles and calves occurring more frequently than with adult animals. Some individuals may be able to detect and avoid underway vessels; however, the behavior of some individuals and age classes, and the behavioral characteri stics of the species, behavioral state, or physical condition may result in an increased vul nerability to disturbance and injury from vessels operating at speeds over 10 knots (e.g., surface-active animals, sick animals, resting animals, and calfs).

Vessels have the potential to affect sperm whales in deeper, pelagic waters (>200 m) where sperm whales are typically found in the GOM. A vessel’s operational speed influences the probability of animal detection and reaction time. Tugs are not believed to pose any significant threat of collision with sperm whales in the GOM because of their relatively slow transit speeds a nd operation in coastal waters where sperm whales are not found. Vessels are known to strike and injure larger sea life (e.g., sperm whales), mostly due to bow strikes (Laist et al. 2001) from vessels operating at fast er speeds. Reported ship collision accounts suggest th at serious injury to whales rarely occurs at speeds below 10 knots (Laist et al. 2001). A vessel’s operatio nal speed also influe nces the probability

of animal detection and reaction time. At slower vessel speeds, a particular location ahead of the vessel is within visual range for a longer period of time before the vessel arrives at that location. For example, a ve ssel traveling at 16 knots that sees a whale 1,000 m ahead will arrive at the whale’s positi on in 2.02 minutes; at 10 knots, the vessel

will arrive at the whale’ s position in 3.23 minutes.

15NMFS considers vessel approaches within 90 m to have the potential for harassment of marine mammals, and close approaches within tens of meters to ha ve the potential to injure a marine mammal. A few individuals occurring within clos e proximity may be expected to be at risk of injury over th e lifetime of the action. For example, the USS BURKELEY reported striking a whale of un certain species at night on June 25, 2001, while undergoing high speed sea trials out of Pascagoula, Mississippi. Based on the location and size of the struck animal, it is believed to have been a sperm whale. Although vessel strikes do occur, these events app ear to be infrequent with this species in offshore waters of the GOM, and are not expect ed to injure sperm whales from routine OCS vessel traffic associated with the proposed lease sales. However, there is a potential for sperm whales to be potentially harassed by passing vessels, and magnitude of this risk is considered in the following analysis.

Although the ESA defines prohibited takes of listed animals to include harassment, the ESA does not define harassment, nor has NM FS defined this term through regulation. However, the MMPA of 1972, as amended, defi nes harassment as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild, or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption to behavioral patte rns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breed ing, feeding, or sheltering (16 USC 1362(18)(A)).

NMFS is particularly concerned about harassme nt to individuals or populations that may

manifest as an animal that fails to feed successfully, breed successf ully (which can result from feeding failure), or complete its lif e history because of altered environmental variables or behavioral patterns. This anal ysis includes an examin ation of the responses

at the level of indivi dual animals that could result in harassment, and any population level consequences, such as a reduction in nu mbers, distribution, or reproduction.

Behavioral reactions by whales to vessel activ ity have been recorded. Aerial surveys have confirmed that sperm whales are pres ent in the GOM throughout the year. Sperm whales are the most often sighted and abundant cetaceans in offshore waters greater than 200 m in depth. Based on active leases as of April 2006, 55 percent of those leases occur in water depths greater than 200 m (3,606 occur on water depths from 0-200 m; 4,501 occur in water depth greater than 200 m); how ever, fewer leases occur in greater depths where sperm whales are found in higher densitie s. The mean density of sperm whales in the GOM is 0.35 per 100 km 2 and is used for this analys is. Due to the uncertainties regarding future vessel activity in deeper o ffshore waters that may affect sperm whales, a conservative estimate of potential harassment was calculated based on the following assumptions:

• sperm whale density of .0035 km -2 ;

• average offshore supply vessel measuring 70 x 16 m (0.070 x 0.016 km);

• a harassment zone of 0.090 km;

16• a vessel may affect a sperm whale only once per round trip;

• 55 percent of the maximum number of a nnual vessel trips will occur in water depth ≥ 200 m (130,900);

• a random distribution of vessels and whales; and

• whales and vessels are stationary at the surface.

By adding a potential harassment zone to a vessel’s dimensions, the harassment dimensions of a vessel is a rectangular-shaped space measuring 0.160 x 0.106 km. A potential harassment area of 0.017 km 2 can be calculated for a single vessel, and a maximum harassment area of 2,225 km 2 resulting from 130,900 vessel trips annually. Based on the mean sperm whale density in the GOM, an estimated 7.8 whales could potentially be found within the area of harassment annually. This estimate assumes a vessel is stationary; however , since vessels are underway between destinations, the probability for a randomly positioned, stationa ry whale to occur within the harassment zone of a vessel may be expected to increas e as a vessel moves thr ough the water, but the assumption that every vessel trip has the potentia l to affect a sperm whale is considered a

conservative estimate of actual encounter rates.

Although the above calculation provides an estimation of potential encounters and potential risks vessels may pose to sperm wh ales, whales are not randomly distributed and may be expected to occur in greater dens ities in some regions than others depending on oceanographic features and ot her factors affecting their di stribution. Such changes in distribution may significantly a ffect where and when sperm whales may be encountered in the GOM. In reality, both sperm whales a nd vessels may have the opportunity to avoid

one another. When encounters within 90 m do occur, sperm whales generally avoid underway vessels.

To reduce the risk of enc ounters with sperm whales, MMS will implement NMFS’ vessel strike avoidance measures for protected sp ecies, as implemented in MMS NTL 2007-G04 (APPENDIX B). With implementation of th ese measures, by maintaining a lookout for marine mammals and taking prudent actions to avoid collisions with them, NMFS

believes that the likelihood of collisions between vessels and sperm whales will be reduced to insignificant levels. The obser ved avoidance of passing vessels by sperm whales is considered an advantageous respons e to avoid a potential threat, such as may occur in response to a predator such as killer whales, and is not expe cted to result in any significant response on migrati on, breathing, nursing, breeding, f eeding, or sheltering to individuals, or have any consequences at the level of the population. With implementation of the vessel strike avoida nce measures requirement to maintain a distance of 90 m from sperm whales, the pot ential for harassment of 7 or 8 whales annually is expected to be reduced to disc ountable levels. The potential for vessels striking sea turtles is discussed in the Effects of the Action in section 7 of this biological opinion.

173.1.2 Effects of Seismic Surveys on Sea Turtles Studies regarding sea turtle hearing indicate that adult green, loggerhead, and Kemp's ridley turtles are sens itive to low to mid-frequency sounds . Other species of sea turtles with unknown hearing measurements have sim ilar anatomies and are expected to have similar hearing ranges from those that have been measured. Although more hearing measurements are needed, the available data suggest that sea turtles are sensitive to frequencies from approximately 200 to 2,000 Hz. Some possible reactions to low frequency sounds include startle responses , rapid swimming, and swimming towards the

surface at the onset of the sound.

In a study measuring the responses of captive green and loggerhead sea turtles exposed to seismic airgun pulses at 10-sec intervals, th e sea turtles increased their swimming speeds when exposed to levels above 166 dB re 1 μ Pa rms (McCauley et al. 2000). The behavior

of the sea turtles became more erratic wh en received levels exceeded 175 dB re 1 μ Pa. Loggerhead sea turtles’ reactions to airguns he ld in an enclosure in a 10-m deep canal maintained a stand-off range of 30 m when exposed (O’Hara and Wilcox 1990). In another study, loggerhead sea turtles in a nett ed enclosure initially exhibited avoidance responses, but the avoidance response waned quickly (Moein et al. 1994). The change in behavior may have been due to habituation or reduced hearing sensitivity resulting from exposure to the noise. Other st udies have also demonstrated that sea turtles behaviorally respond to exposure to noise, but the exposure le vels and frequencies were not reported.

Based on this information, sea turtles expos ed to airgun pulses during the proposed survey may exhibit avoidance behavior. St udies suggest that a voidance may begin at

levels above 166 dB re 1 μ Pa. Avoidance behavior may shorten the exposure period; however, the avoidance behavior could potentially di srupt normal behaviors. Although sea turtles may be expected to avoid the vicin ity of seismic surveys, important habitat for sea turtles is overall associated with greater habitat quality (i.e., fora ging habitat, juvenile habitat, and nesting beache s) along inshore and nearshore waters of the GOM. Any reactions of sea turtles to seismic surveys w ill be limited to an avoidance response in the vicinity of the surveys. Sea turtles behavior ally disrupted would be expected to resume

their behavior after the seis mic vessel has moved out of their immediate area, without significant impairment of feedi ng, migration, or other behavior s due to the short duration of exposure. Sea turtles also occur in greater abundances in closer to shore than in offshore waters, with the exception of foraging leatherbacks. With implementation of the MMS NTL No. 2007-G02 (APPENDIX A), the pot entially for adverse effects to sea

turtles will be reduced to discountable levels.

3.1.3 Vessel Noise and Operation Vessels transmit noise through water and cumu latively are a signifi cant contributor to increases in ambient noise levels in many areas. The dominant source of vessel noise from the proposed action is propeller cavitation, although othe r ancillary noises may be produced. The intensity of noise from service vessels is roughly rela ted to ship size and speed. Large ships tend to be noisier than small ones, and ships underway with a full load (or towing or pushing a load) produce more noise than unladen vessels. Shipping traffic is most significant at frequencies fr om 20 to 300 Hz. Supertankers may generate

18peak sources levels of 185 to 190 dB re 1 μ Pa-m at about 7 Hz, and 160 dB re 1 μ Pa-m at frequencies of 20 to 60 Hz (Richardson et al . 1995). However, vessel traffic proposed in the action would produce lower levels of noise of 150 to 170 dB re 1 μ Pa-m at frequencies below 1,000 Hz. A tug pu lling a barge generates 164 dB re 1 μ Pa-m when empty and 170 dB re 1 μ Pa-m loaded. A tug and barge underway at 18 km/h can generate broadband source levels of 171 dB re 1 μ Pa-m. A small crew boat produces 156

dB re 1 μ Pa-m at 90 Hz.

Increases in ambient noise are believed to be a potential threat fo r marine animals having greatest hearing sensitiv ities at lower frequencies that overlap with the main frequency level of energy produced by vessels, such as thos e of mysticetes, sea turtles, and fishes.

Because vessel noise is continuous in the marine environment and can propagate great distances, masking and behavioral disturbanc e may be important effects on mysticetes, which can hear in the frequency range pr oduced by vessels, but is not expected for odontocetes, such as sperm whales, whic h hear at higher frequencies.

When higher frequencies are produced by vesse l operation, they are generally of lower sound levels and do not propagate great distan ces. Any potential for disturbance from noise would be within close proximity to a ve ssel. Sperm whale responses to vessels may vary depending on the type of vessel involved. Sperm whales have been observed to reduce surface times with fewer blows per su rface, exhibit shorter intervals between blows, and exhibit reduced fr equency of dives with raised flukes, while other whales tolerate boat presence (Gordon et al. 1992). Many reactions observed by sperm whales appear to be associated with the level of noise produced by the vessels (Richardson et al. 1995). The variable reactions by individual sp erm whales may indicate some habituation on the part of those individuals that do not exhibit any reac tions or may be indicative of

individual variation in the beha vioral patterns that are also associated with other marine mammals. Vessel noise and the presence of the vessel on the water may potentially affect the behavior of animals at relatively close distances where the vessel noise is more audible and the vessel may be vi sible from both below and above the surface. To reduce the risk of interactions with sperm whales, MMS will implement NMFS’ vessel strike avoidance measures for protected specie s, as implemented in MMS NTL 2007-G04 (APPENDIX B). The NTL requires that vesse l operators maintain a distance of 90 m from sperm whales that would reduce poten tial disturbances to this species to

discountable levels.

Effects on sea turtles are not expected since th ese species do not appear to greatly utilize environmental sound, at least at far distan ces in the open ocean. For sea turtles, avoidance appears to be more of a function of the physical presence of the vessel rather than the noise produced. To reduce the potential risk of interactions with sea turtles, MMS will implement NMFS’ vessel strike avoidance measures for protected species, as implemented in MMS NTL 2007-G04 (APPENDIX B). The NTL requires that vessel operators maintain a distance of 45 m from sea turtles that woul d reduce the potential effects from the physical presence of the vessels to discountable levels.

19It is not likely that lease sales in the WPA will result in any trips east of the Mississippi River that would affect the designated critical habitat of the Gulf sturgeon. In the CPA major navigation channels are excluded from critical habita t. Gulf sturgeon are not expected to be impacted by noise and direct physical impacts associated with vessel traffic associated with oil and gas activities in the WPA and CPA, since vessels are not expected to operate in this species’ habitat.

3.1.4 Helicopter Operation Aircraft operation may ensonify broad areas, albeit for short periods at any one location while in transit. Helicopters produce sounds (resulting from rotors) generally below 500

Hz with estimated source levels for a Bell 212 helicopter of 149 to 151 dB re 1 μ Pa-m (Richardson et al. 1995). At incident angles greater than 13° from the vertical, much of the incident noise from passing aircraft is reflected and does not penetrate the water (Urick 1972). Therefore, NMFS believes unde rwater noise from helicopters is generally very brief in duration, compared with the duration of audibility in the air, and the effects of underwater noise from helicopters on listed species of sperm whales, sea turtles, and Gulf sturgeon will be insignificant.

Helicopter noise may affect sea turtles and sp erm whales at the surf ace by eliciting startle responses due to increasing noise of a helicopt er as it rapidly appro aches, or due to the physical presence of the helicop ter in the air. A hovering or circling aircraft would be expected to have a potentially greater affect on an animal. The modes by which an animal may be affected and the magnitude of those affects may not only depend on the helicopter operation (i.e., hoveri ng or circling), but also on th e species, hearing ability, or behavior of the animal. Routine OCS helicopte r traffic would not be expected to disturb animals for extended periods, pr ovided pilots do not alter their flight patterns to more closely observe or photograph marine mammals . Helicopters, while flying offshore, generally maintain altitudes a bove 700 ft during transit to an d from a working area, and at an altitude of about 500 ft between platforms. The duration of the effects resulting from a startle response are expected to be short-term during routin e flights, and the potential effects will be insignificant to sea turtles and sperm whales.

3.1.5 Marine Debris Although the intentional discha rge of marine debris is prohibited by law (30 CFR 250.40 and MARPOL, Annex V, P.L. 100-220 [101 St. 1458]), accidental losses of debris do occur. Marine debris may originate from a variety of sources, yet the sources are usually not identified. A published st udy regarding shoreline trash at Padre Island National Seashore reported that approximately 10 per cent of marine trash that washed ashore originated from offshore struct ures and/or vessels associ ated with the oil and gas industry. The incidental ingestion of mari ne debris and entanglement continue to adversely affect listed species and has been considered in preparation of the waste management plan for this project. MMS has proposed incorporation of an annual training and certification requirement for marine debris education and elimination for all offshore personnel, including the potential for adverse effects to li sted species as required by MMS NTL 2007-G03 (APPENDIX C). NMFS be lieves that, with implementation of

20these measures, the potential for adverse impacts to listed species resulting from accidental discharges of trash and debris is discountable.

3.1.6 Construction Noise Gulf sturgeon are not expected to be found in any OCS area in which MMS-permitted pile driving activity could occur and will not be affected. Pile driving is not required for deepwater structure installati ons; however, few activities do occur in waters depths >200 m. Because sperm whales are most comm only found in greater water depths > 1,000 m and most installations occur in shallower dept hs, the risk of sperm whales being affected by pile driving noise is considered discount able. Although vessel noi se is a relatively

constant contributor to ambient noise levels in the GOM, NMFS consid ers pile driving to be a louder and frequent noise source resul ting from many, but transi ent point sources of

noise from construction activities. The noise from these activities over the continental shelf and slope regions of the OCS has the great est potential to affect listed species of sea

turtles because the tu rtles are routinely f ound in these areas.

Although pile-driving noise is not a continuous signal, repeated blows from the hammer (generally several seconds apart) could potentiall y affect the behavior of sea turtles in the

area. Most structure installa tion requiring pile driving is expected to occur over the

continental shelf in waters le ss than 400 m. Casing conductor driving operations occur in all water depths throughout the Central a nd Western GOM, but are concentrated on the

shelf in waters less than 200 m in federal wate rs, and would therefore affect mostly listed species of sea turtles.

Despite a gradual decrease during the past 4 or 5 years due to increased deepwater activities, statistics compiled over the last 10 years indicate that an average of over 1,100 drilling operations are conducted annually in the Central and Western GOM. Since current MMS permitting and database proces ses do not track the method of conductor casing installation, it is assumed that the major ity of the new drilling activities will use an impact hammer, as this is the preferred method of pile driving in the GOM. Pile-driving operations supporting oil and gas activities in the GOM involve the same basic principles

as on-shore or coastal/near-s hore activities; us ing specialized equipment to force an object into the sediment to a ffix an object that requires a st ationary hold or foundation. Unlike on-shore activities, pile-driving ope rations on the GOM OCS involve the added complexity that comes with mobilizi ng, rigging, powering, and controlling complex equipment from platforms and vessels often dozens to thousands of feet above the substrate surface and in many instances, requiring operations in a sub-sea environment.

Pile driving noise is a rela tively broadband signal that may be audible to many species. There is a potential for sea tur tles to avoid the ensonified ar ea of pile driving. The sound waves produced by pile driving projects may deter animals by acting as an acoustic deterrent from the construction area. Deterrence may be an important effect of pile driving if it disrupts feeding, ma ting, or sheltering of individu als. Sea turtles are found in greater abundances in nearshore and inshor e waters (Epperly et al. 2002) than offshore habitats where the proposed lease sale activ ities would potentially occur. The higher

abundance of animals in coastal habitats is attr ibuted to the higher quality of these coastal

21habitats for these species than those offshor e. Although adverse effects on fishes have been reported in riverine and coastal habita ts, these effects are not be expected for sea

turtles in the offshore environment where they occur in lesser abundances, are more transient, and wouldn’t be expected to be at tracted to an area wher e new construction is occurring. Additionally, new construction activ ities do not have an established marine community surrounding it that may attract mari ne life (e.g., oil and gas platforms already installed). Based on the above analysis, th e likelihood of ad verse affects on sea turtles from pile driving is considered to be discountable.

3.1.7 Operation Noise Noise associated with decommissioning phase s has been considered in a programmatic biological opinion completed in 2007. Geologi cal and geophysical surveying is currently being considered in a programmatic consu ltation with MMS. All offshore activities on

the OCS discussed in the section will not aff ect Gulf sturgeon becau se these activities are beyond the range of this species. Noise asso ciated with pile dr iving and vessels are discussed above. The following considers the effects of common noise-producing activities resulting from the proposed action.

Machinery Noise Machinery noise generated during the operation of fixed structures can be continuous or transient, and variable in intensity. Underw ater noise from fixed structures ranges from about 20 to 40 decibels (dB) above background levels within a frequency spectrum of 30- 300 Hz at a distance of 30 m from the source (G ales 1982). These levels vary with type of platform and water depth. Underwater noise from platforms standing on metal legs would be expected to be insignificant of the small surface area in c ontact with the water and the placement of machinery on decks well above the water.

Drilling Offshore drilling and production involves a variety of activities that produce underwater noises. Noises emanating from drilling activi ties from fixed, metal-legged platforms are considered not very intense and generally are at very low frequencies; near 5 Hz. Gales (1982) reported received levels of 119 to 127 dB re 1 μ Pa-m at near-field measurements. Noises from semi-submersible platforms al so show rather low sound source levels. Drillships show somewhat higher noise levels than semi-submersibles as a result of mechanical noises generated thr ough the drillship hull. The drillship Canmar Explorer II generates broadband source levels of 174 dB re 1 μ Pa-m. Noises associated with offshore oil and gas production are generally we ak and typically at very low frequencies (~4.5 to 38 Hz) (Gales 1982). Although drilling noise may c ontribute to increases in

ambient noise levels in the GOM while these activities are occurring, based on the available information, drilling is not expect ed to produce amplitudes sufficient to case hearing or behavioral effects in sea turtles or sperm whales; therefore, these effects are insignificant.

3.1.8 Pipeline Construction Effects on Sea Turtles and Gulf Sturgeon

The conventional construction season for pipeline installation is spring through fall (MMS 2006). Although sea turtles could be found in a pipeline construction area any

22time of year, potential impacts to Gulf sturgeon would be avoided during this construction period when Gulf sturge on are found in riverine habitats. However, since this analysis is based upon anticipated activit ies in the future and the time of year of pipeline construction is unknown, it is assu med construction may occur any time. Construction of offshore pipelines will result in turbidity from burying of the pipeline as it is deployed by one barge as a second barge cuts (jets) the trenches and buries the pipeline. Sediment disturbance may also o ccur from jetting and trench ing of the seafloor to lay the pipeline. The effects of turbidity are not expected to result in adverse impacts to listed species and are cons idered discountable. Any poten tial disturbance would be

associated with short-term avoidance of th e construction area. A ny avoidance behavior that may occur is not expected to result in any detectable change in the foraging success

or health of individuals. S ea turtles and Gulf sturgeon that may be in the area of pipeline installation or resting on the seafloor may experience te mporary displacement from the area. Any disturbances to liste d sea turtle species are expected to be insignificant, having no adverse impacts on listed species of sea turtles or Gulf sturgeon.

Pipelines installed in water depths greater than 500 m use dynamically positioned barges that do not require anchoring to the sea floor or bur ying of the pipeline. Construction of pipelines is not expected to affect sperm whales, and th e potential effects of vessel operations on listed species are discussed above.

3.1.9 Brightly-lit platforms Lighting of offshore structures presents a potential danger to sea turtle hatchlings (Owens 1983). Artificial lighting is a known threat to nesting sea turtles and interrupts the oceanfinding behavior of neonates. Hatchlings are known to be attracted to light (Witherington and Martin 1996, Witherington 1997). Platfo rm lighting near nesting beaches could potentially affect nesting sea turtles and aff ect the behavior during the offshore migration

of neonates if the structures are close to shore (Chan and Liew 1988). If this occurs, hatchling predation would increase dramatically since large birds and predacious fish also congregate around the platforms (Owens 1983, Witherington and Martin 1996). However, hatchlings may rely less on light cues offshore (Salm on and Wyneken 1990). Furthermore, attraction to offshore locations would be less problematic than attraction to landside locations, as the issue is to ensure that hatchlings head to sea rather than remaining onshore, or swimming parallel to s hore where they are subject to a variety of mortality risks. Due to the location of MMS -permitted structures on the OCS, the effects of lighting from offshore structures on sea turtles are insignificant.

3.1.10 Heavy Metals The environmental risks of chemical products used in GOM oil and gas operations have been analyzed and continue to be studied. Produced waters, drill muds, and drill cuttings are routinely discharged into offshore mari ne waters and are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USE PA) National Pollutant and Discharge Elimination System permits. Most of the r outinely discharged chemicals are diluted and dispersed when released in offshore areas a nd are not expected to directly affect any listed species. Accidental or intentional discharges of chemic als have the potential to be released in large volumes that may have de leterious short-term ef fects (hours to days)

23within the immediate marine environment. When an area is drilled, drilling fluids, drill cuttings, produced water, deck drainage, sanitary wastes, and domestic wastes are released. During production, additional wa ste streams include produced sand and well treatment, workover, and completion fluids. Minor discharges are also released from desalination units, blowout preventer fluids, boiler blowdown, and excess cement slurry.

The chemical profiles, toxicity, and spill analyses have been summarized for some chemical compounds used for development and production and are detailed in MMS

2001a and 2001b. The Lethal Concentration 50 (LC50), Effect Concentration 50 (EC50),

and Lowest Observed Effect Concentrati on (LOEC) of these chemicals have been determined for algae, invertebrates, fish, and benthic organisms. Existing data show that heavy metal concentrations are often present in marine mammal and sea turtle tissues and organs from different locations around the wo rld’s oceans. These heavy metals are also detected in eggs and hatchling sea turtles, as well as in the milk of lactating cetaceans. Neff (2002) provides a review of bioaccumulatio n in marine organisms and the effects of contaminants in oil well produced water.

A comprehensive review of the wastes and pollutants generated by oil and gas activities and their toxicity to selected marine organisms may be found in NPDES evaluation criteria (USEPA 1993a, 1993b). Results of analysis conducted by Neff et al. (1989) looked at the accumulation of mercury and ot her metals in flounder, clams, and sand worms. Flounder did not accumulate any metals during exposure, and the soft-shell clams and sand worms had only slight increases of some metals. The authors noted that most of the accumulated metals were actually in the gut or gills as barite particles. These investigations led the research ers to conclude that metals associated with drilling fluid barite are not readily available by uptake from marine organisms.

The quantitatively most important sources of mercury from exploration and production activities are drilling fluids and produced wa ter. GOM-produced water rarely contains more than about 0.1 mg/L total mercury (about 10-fold higher than clean natural seawater). Nearly all the mercury in drilli ng muds is associated with barite, which is added to the mud as a weighting agent. The USEPA limit on mercury in barite is 1 part per million (ppm). The average mercury concen tration in modern drilling mud barite is 0.5 ppm. Most drilling muds and cuttings contain <0.1 ppm mercury. The mercury in produced water is diluted rapidly to bac kground concentrations fo llowing discharge to the ocean. Most drilling muds discharged to US waters contain <1 ppm mercury. Sediments around offshore platforms in the GOM also rarely contain more than 1 ppm mercury. The background concentration of mercury in marine sediments from the GOM is usually <0.1 ppm.

The mercury in drilling mud bar ite is sequestered in the solid barium sulfate in sulfide minerals, particularly sphelerite (ZnS). It is extremely insoluble and stable in this form, particularly in anoxic sediments. Very litt le mercury can be extracted from the barite, even under mildly acidic conditions, as might occur in the digestiv e tract of a marine animal. Because of its low bioavailability, me rcury in barite is not readily available for

24methylation, and has consequently been show n to not be readily available in the food

chain.

Drilling fluids also contain barium and trace amounts of chromium, copper, cadmium, mercury, lead, and zinc. Chronic levels of th ese metals are localized to within 150 m of drilling structures (Kennicutt 1995). Statistically significant levels (when compared to background levels) of all these metals except chromium have been measured within 500 m of GOM drilling site s (Boothe and Presley 1989), a nd dilution to b ackground levels occurs within 1,000 m of the discharge point.

Although elevated levels of mercury may o ccur within 500 m of dr illing sites (Kennicutt 1995), the chemical composition of the mercury in barite is not readily available to biological organisms (Neff et al. 1989). Data fo r mercury in tissues of fish and shellfish

from the GOM show that marine animals coll ected near offshore platforms do not contain significantly higher concentrati ons of mercury than the same or related species from

elsewhere in the GOM. Alt hough there is some localized heavy metal contamination within 150 m of drilling sites, it is not expect ed to adversely affect larger, wide-ranging species such as sea turtles and sperm whal es. No MMS-permitted oil and gas drilling occurs in or near Gulf sturgeon habitat, a nd no effects on this species or its designated critical habitat is expected, and not cons idered further in th is biological opinion.

3.1.11 Water Quality The main sources of wastes and discharges ge nerated from oil and gas operations include treated sewage, treated wastew ater, engine waste, biodegrad able food waste, and solid waste. Wastes and discharges will result from operation of offshore structures and support vessels. Due to standard practices of the presence of curbs, drip pans, and other pollution prevention equipment on offshore struct ures, we believe the routine discharges of treated sewage, wastewater, and biodegrad able food wastes will not adversely affect listed species of sea turtles, Gu lf sturgeon, or sperm whales.

Turbidity could result from cons truction activities, including pipelines, anchoring, and pile driving. The amount of turbidity from th ese type of activities is generally localized and short-term in duration. Listed speci es in any construction area may experience temporary displacement from the area, yet minor di sturbance, if any, is expected to occur. Any disturbances to sea turtle, Gulf stur geon, or sperm whales from turbidity are expected to be short term and insignifican t, having no adverse impacts on these species.

Some additional sources of turbidity may be associated with the anchoring of tugboats used in the GBS installation, placement of the GBS on the seaf loor, and the installation of other LNG terminal components (e.g., steel jack et, mooring structures, and pipeline riser platform). All these effects are expected to result in minimal disturbance of the seafloor and any turbidity would be expected to have short term, minor effects on water quality. Insignificant effects to listed species are e xpected from these short-term increases in turbidity.

25Summary of Potential Adverse Effects to Listed Species In summary, NMFS concludes green, hawksb ill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles; and Gulf sturgeon are not likely to be adversely affected by the above effects associated with the proposed action; however, the effects of vessel strikes on sea turtles, and the effects of oil spills on all listed species in the action area are

considered further in the Eff ects of the Action in Section 7 of this biological opinion.

4 CRITICAL HABITAT LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED

Gulf sturgeon critical habitat was jointly designated by NMFS and USFWS on April 18, 2003 (50 CFR 226.214). Critical habitat is define d in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as (i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a spec ies, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species a nd (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a de termination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” is defined in section 3(3) of the ESA as the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary.

Gulf sturgeon critical habitat includes areas within the major river systems that support the seven currently reproduc ing subpopulations (USFWS et al. 1995) and associated

estuarine and marine habitats. Gulf sturgeon use the rivers for spawning, larval and juvenile feeding, adult resting and staging, a nd to move between the areas that support these components. Gulf sturgeon use the lower riverine, estuarine, and marine environments during winter months primarily for feeding and, more rarely, for inter-river migrations. Estuaries and bays adjacent to the riverine units provide unobstructed passage of sturgeon from feeding areas to spawning grounds.

Fourteen areas (units) are designated as Gulf sturgeon critical habita t. Critical habitat units encompass approximately 2,783 river kilometers (km) and 6,042 km 2 of estuarine and marine habitats and include portions of the following GOM rivers, tributaries, estuarine, and marine areas:

Unit 1 = Pearl and Bogue Chitto Rivers in Louisiana and Mississippi Unit 2 = Pascagoula, Leaf, Bowie, Big Bl ack Creek and Chickasawhay Rivers in Mississippi
Unit 3 = Escambia, Conecuh, and Sepulga Rivers in Alabama and Florida Unit 4 = Yellow, Blackwater, and Shoa l Rivers in Alabama and Florida

Unit 5 = Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers in Florida and Alabama Unit 6 = Apalachicola and Brot hers Rivers in Florida

Unit 7 = Suwannee and Withlacoochee Rivers in Florida Unit 8 = Lake Pontchartrain (east of cause way), Lake Catherine, Little Lake, the Rigolets, Lake Borgne, Pascagoula Bay and Mississippi Sound systems in Louisiana and Mississippi, and secti ons of the state waters within the

GOM

26Unit 9 = Pensacola Bay system in Florida

Unit 10 = Santa Rosa Sound in Florida

Unit 11 = Nearshore GOM in Florida Unit 12 = Choctawhatchee Bay system in Florida Unit 13 = Apalachicola Bay sy stem in Florida, and

Unit 14 = Suwannee Sound in Florida

Critical habitat determinations focus on those physical and biological features, or primary constituent elements (PCEs), that are essentia l to the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12). Federal agencies must insure that thei r activities are not likel y to result in the

destruction or adverse modifi cation of the PCEs within defined critical habitats. Therefore, proposed actions that may impact designated critical habitat require an analysis of potential impacts to each PCE.

PCEs identified as essential for the c onservation of the Gulf sturgeon consist of:

(1) Abundant food items, such as detritus, aquatic insects, worms, and/ or molluscs, within riverine habitats for larval and juvenile life stages; and abundant prey items, such as amphipods, lancelets, polychaetes, gastropods, ghost shrimp, isopods, mollusc s and/or crustaceans, within

estuarine and marine hab itats and substrates fo r subadult and adult life

stages;

(2) Riverine spawning sites with s ubstrates suitable for egg deposition and development, such as limestone outcrops and cut limestone banks, bedrock, large gravel or cobble beds , marl, soapstone, or hard clay;

(3) Riverine aggregation areas, also referred to as resting, holding, and staging areas, used by adult, subadu lt, and/or juveniles, generally, but not always, located in holes below normal riverbed depths, believed necessary for minimizing energy expenditures during fresh water residency and possibly for osmoregulatory functions;

(4) A flow regime (i.e., the magnit ude, frequency, duration, seasonality, and rate-of-change of fresh water discharge over time) necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages in the riverine environment, including migration, breeding site selection, courtship, egg fertilization, resting, and stag ing, and for maintaining spawning

sites in suitable conditio n for egg attachment, egg sheltering, resting, and larval staging;

(5) Water quality, including temperature, salinity, pH, hardness, turbidity, oxygen content, and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages;

27(6) Sediment quality, including texture and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growt h, and viability of all life stages;

and

(7) Safe and unobstructed migratory pathways necessary for passage within and between riverine, estuarin e, and marine habitats (e.g., an

unobstructed river or a dammed river that still allows for passage).

As stated in the final rule designating Gulf sturgeon cri tical habitat (68 FR 13399), the following activities, among others, when aut horized, funded or carried out by a federal agency, may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat:

(1) Actions that would appreciably re duce the abundance of riverine prey for larval and juvenile sturgeon, or of estuarine and marine prey for juvenile and adult Gulf sturgeon, with in a designated critical habitat unit, such as dredging; dredged mate rial disposal; channelization; instream mining; and land uses th at cause excessive turbidity or sedimentation;

(2) Actions that would appreciably redu ce the suitability of Gulf sturgeon spawning sites for egg depositi on and development within a designated critical habitat unit, such as impoundment; hard-bottom removal for navigation channel deepen ing; dredged material disposal; in-stream mining; and land uses that cause excessive sedimentation;

(3) Actions that would appreciably redu ce the suitability of Gulf sturgeon riverine aggregation areas, also re ferred to as resting, holding, and staging areas, used by adult, suba dult, and/or juveniles, believed necessary for minimizing energy expenditures and possibly for osmoregulatory functions, such as dr edged material disposal upstream or directly within such areas; and other land uses that cause excessive sedimentation;

(4) Actions that would alter the fl ow regime (the magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonality, and rate-of-cha nge of fresh water discharge over time) of a riverine critical habita t unit such that it is appreciably impaired for the purposes of Gulf sturgeon migration, resting, staging, breeding site selection, courtship, egg fertilization, egg deposition, and egg development, such as impoundment; water diversion; and dam operations;

(5) Actions that would alter water qu ality within a designated critical habitat unit, including temperature, salinity, pH, hardness, turbidity, oxygen content, and other chemical characteristics, such that it is appreciably impaired for normal Gu lf sturgeon behavior, reproduction, growth, or viability, such as dre dging; dredged material disposal;

28channelization; impoundment; in-strea m mining; water diversion; dam operations; land uses that cause exce ssive turbidity; and release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated effluents into surface water or connected groundwater via point sources or dispersed non-point

sources;

(6) Actions that would alter sediment quality within a designated critical habitat unit such that it is appr eciably impaired for normal Gulf sturgeon behavior, reproduction, growt h, or viability, such as dredged material disposal; channelizatio n; impoundment; in-stream mining; land uses that cause excessive sedimentation; and release of chemical or biological pollutants that accumulate in sediments; and

(7) Actions that would obstruct migr atory pathways within and between adjacent riverine, estuarine, and mari ne critical habitat units, such as dams, dredging, point-source-pollutant discharges, and other physical

or chemical alterations of channe ls and passes that restrict Gulf

sturgeon movement.

4.1 Effects to Critical Habita t Considered and Discounted Gulf sturgeon critical habitat was designated in 2003 (50 CFR 226.214). Federal agencies must insure that their activities ar e not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical ha bitat through adverse e ffects to the primary constituent elements (PCEs) within defined critical habitats. The seaward boundary of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama state co astal zones is 3 nautical miles into the territorial sea. Since Gulf sturgeon critical habitat extends only 1 mile beyond the barrier islands, it is fully within State waters. MMS lease sale activities primarily occur offshore and would not be expected to directly aff ect designated critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. However, pipelines and accidental spills were considered and discounted for their potential to adversely affect designated critical habitat.

4.1.1 Pipelines Various entities regulate pipeline and other activity in State waters with either the COE or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the lead federal agency responsible for permitting such activities. Pi peline construction is therefore considered an indirect effect of the pr oposed action. If a pipeline were to be constructed through designated critical habitat for Gulf sturge on, pipeline projects w ould have individual permits associated with them and would be subject to section 7 consultation under the

ESA with FERC at that time.

Increasingly, the trend is for new OCS pipelines to tie into existing systems rather than creating new landfalls. Over the last 10 year s, there has been an average of about one new OCS pipeline-making landfall per year. Since 2002, only one new pipeline has

come to shore in Louisiana from OCS-related activities, but none have been constructed in designated Gulf sturgeon cri tical habitat since its designation that have been a result of MMS actions. Based on this trend, few if a ny pipelines are expected to affect Gulf

29sturgeon critical habita t. However, considering the dur ation of proposed action, between the years 2007 and 2046, 80-118 new pipelines are pr ojected in state waters as a result of the OCS Program. Of those pipelines, 32-47 (25-36 in Louisiana, 1-3 in Mississippi and/or Alabama) are projected to make landfa ll. Any pipelines that make landfall would most likely go ashore in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana; Jackson C ounty, Mississippi; or Mobile County, Alabama. Landfalls in Pla quemines Parish, Louisiana are not expected to affect critical habitat. However, the estimated three pipelines making landfall in Mississippi and Alabama may af fect designated critical ha bitat unit 8. Currently, no pipelines are currently planned for constructi on in designated critical habitat; therefore, the following analysis is based upon the best available informati on for this type of activity with the expectation that a few pi pelines may be constructed in designated critical habitat unit 8 over the 40-year lifetime of the action.

Of the seven PCEs of Gulf sturgeon critical habitat disc ussed above, four are found in critical habitat unit 8: 1) abundant food items ; 2) water quality; 3) sediment quality; and 4) migratory pathways. The following PCEs were considered, and discounted for the potential to be adversely a ffected by the proposed lease sales: water quality, migratory pathways, and sediment quality.

Abundant Food Items

It is assumed that 0.32 ha of bottom is distur bed per kilometer of pi peline installed (MMS 2006). Benthic organisms could be displaced or buried during jetting, trenching, and burial of pipelines. Because the pipeline is exp ected to be buried at a depth of 1 m in this

area and the amount of material side-cast to create the trench is expect to range several inches in depth, invertebrates are expected to be able to recoloni ze the area by burrowing and/or tunneling back to the se diment depths in which they are usually found. The sidecasting of the material resulting from trenchi ng and jetting is expect ed to be minor and insignificant since the invertebrates will be co vered with a relatively shallow amount of sediment and the effects are expected to be short-term and insignificant. Following laying of pipelines in water depths <60 m, th ey are required to be buried. Pipelines are required to be buried at a minimum depth of 1 m and invertebrates will be able to colonize these sediments following burial, and will be available to foraging Gulf sturgeon. The impacted areas from the potenti al three pipelines w ould be expected to affect a very small percentage of the total ar ea of unit 8. The impacts are expected to be temporary and not significantly affect the av ailable foraging habitat in unit 8 while the impacts last.

Anchoring of barges is usually required dur ing construction of the pipeline. Anchor depressions can be as deep as 2.1 to 2.8 m. Each time an anchor is relocated, sediments and benthic organisms beneath the anchor w ould be displaced, suspended, or crushed. Anchoring methods are designed to minimize movement and sweeping of anchor chains; therefore, impacts are expected to be minimal. The areas affected would be available for recolonization of invertebrate fauna following anchor removal. The effects to invertebrates are expected to be temporary and insignificant.

30Potential pipeline leaks were also considered for the potential to affect abundant prey items, sediment quality, and water quality. Because natural gas would bubble to the surface and dissipate, no impacts to Gulf st urgeon critical habitat PCEs would be expected.

Water Quality The disturbance of approximate 0.32 ha of bottom per kilometer of pipeline installed (MMS 2006) may affect water quality in the Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. Sediments would be suspended resulting in increased turb idity and a short-term degradation of water quality. The turbidity is expected to last from hours to days depending on the amount of sediment suspended. During jetting and trench ing, and anchor placement, some turbidity is expected to occur. No changes in temp erature, salinity, pH, ha rdness, oxygen content,

or other chemical characteri stics are expected from pi peline construction. NMFS does not expect measurable impacts to the status of th is PCE, as a result of this project, within unit 8 or designated Gulf sturge on critical habitat overall.

Sediment Quality

Sediment contaminants were considered for their potential to be suspended and settle during construction operations. The (USEPA ) has assessed the overall condition of GOM estuaries (USEPA 1999). Based on this assessment, the USEPA concluded that there was an even distribution of estuary si tes between the Florida panhandle and Corpus Christi, Texas, whose sediments were contaminated. However, the majority of estuarine ecosystems in all GOM states were identified as having fair to good sediment quality.

Trenching and jetting will be used to lay the pipeline. Coarse sediment will settle out quickly (hours), while finer sediments may re main suspended for longer periods (hours to days). Because the depth of disturbance is rather shallow (the pipeline will be buried at a depth of 1 m), the quality of sediment settling out on the seaf loor is expected to be the same as pre-distur bance conditions.

Based on the available information regarding contaminants and depth of sediment disturbance, no adverse affects to sediment quality are expected from pipeline

construction.

Migratory Pathways Effects on migratory pathways of Gulf sturgeon critical ha bitat unit 8 were considered during consultation on this project. Because pipeline construction generally occurs in open waters of the GOM and will involve th e localized disturbances related to the immediate area of pipe-laying activities, NMFS believes that the project will not reduce or eliminate Gulf sturgeon access to areas nearby or adjacent to the immediate project site. Therefore, pipeline construction is not expected to adversely affect migratory pathways.

4.1.2 Accidental Spills Potential impacts on designated Gulf sturgeon cr itical habitat may o ccur from drilling and produced water discharges, accidental releas es of fluids, blowouts, and oil spills.

31Designated critical habitat units 8 and 9 were co nsidered in this analysis. If a spill were to contact Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, th e PCEs of water quality, sediment quality, and abundant prey items may be affected. Coasta l areas are generally more susceptible to contact by inshore or coastal spills. Inshore spills have a low probability of occurrence. Inshore vessel collisions may release fuel a nd lubricant oils and pi peline ruptures may release crude and condensate oil and may infr equently occur. Because of the floating nature of oil and the small tidal range in th e coastal GOM, oil spills alone would typically have very little impact on benthic feeders such as the Gulf sturgeon. Unusually low tidal events, increased wave energy, or the use of oil dispersants increase the risk of impact with bottom-feeding and/or bottom-dwelling fa una. For this reas on, dispersants are not usually used in response to coastal spills. Dispersants would likely be used for offshore spills and are expected to disperse about 65 percent of the volume of a spill. Additionally, considering the projected use of shore base s in support of activities resulting from a proposed action, very few of the estimated 46-102 co astal spills resulting from a proposed action in the CPA are likely to occur east of the Mississippi River. No coastal spills are projected to occur in Mississi ppi, Alabama, or Florida coastal waters as a result of a proposed action in the CPA. NM FS believes that the risk from inshore spills reaching Gulf sturgeon designated critical habita t and affecting any PCEs is so low, it is

discountable.

Offshore spills are generally far less likely to affect designated critical habitat than inshore or coastal spills because much of th e critical habitat is pr otected from offshore spills by barrier islands, shoals, shorelines, a nd currents. Smaller spills (<42,000 gal) are not expected to significantly impact water quality in marine and coastal waters. The dilution and low toxicity of this pollution from small spills offshore are not expected to reach any designated critical habitat and is considered discountable. Larger spills, however, could impact coastal waters, depe nding on many factors such as the buoyancy of the spilled fluid, distance from the spill, currents, and duration of the spill.

The potential risk of an oil spill affecting Gu lf sturgeon critical hab itat must be evaluated before the potential affects to PCEs can be assessed. Several factors reduce the probability of spilled oil affecting Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, including:

• The inshore, riverine areas of designated habitat have a neg ligible probability of impact from accidental oil spills due to geographic protection, location east of the Mississippi River, and dist ance from major shore bases;

• The floating nature of oil and the lack of large tidal ranges, as well as the influence of the Mississippi River outflo w to help disperse slicks, diminishes the probability of significant impact of spilled oil on Gulf sturgeon critical habitat;

• The very low probability (1 percent or less) of a large offshore oil spill contacting Gulf sturgeon critical habita t in all but the very westernmost area diminishes potential impact to, or alteration of, critical habitat; and

• The extremely low probability of a coastal spill impacting east of the Mississippi River and north of Plaquemines Parish diminishes the probability of oil impacts to critical habitat.

32Based on oil spill modeling conducted by MMS, the coastal waters inhabited by the Gulf sturgeon are not expected to be at any significant risk from oil spills. The likelihood of a spill >42,000 gal occurring within the WPA and reaching designated critical habitat within 10 days after the spill in cident is <0.5 percent and considered discountable (Table 4). Very few of the estimated 46-102 coastal spills resulting from a proposed action in the CPA are likely to occur east of the Mississippi River. No coastal spills are projected to occur in Mississippi, Alabama, or Florid a coastal waters as a result of a proposed action in the CPA. However, MMS conducted an analysis of the risk of a spill >42,000 gal occurring offshore as a result of a propos ed action and reaching the known locations of the Gulf sturgeon within 10 da ys after the spill event. It is estimated that there is a 1 percent risk for Louisiana waters east of th e Mississippi River to be affected by an oil slick within 10 days. Probabil ities decrease below 1 percent to areas further to the east.

Table 4. Probability (% chance) of oil spills ≥ 42,000 gal occurring and contacting designated Gulf sturgeon critic al habitat within 10 days as a result of a WPA or CPA proposed action (“high” and “low” refer to production levels).

WPA CPA Critical
Habitat Unit Low High Low High

8 <0.5 <0.5 1 1

9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Based on the above analysis, the likelihood of spi ll occurrence and subsequent contact with Gulf sturgeon designated critical habita t is extremely low; therefore the potential affect to any PCE is considered discountable.

Summary of Effects to PCEs In summary, the PCEs of abundant prey items, water quality, sediment quality, and migratory pathways are not likely to be adve rsely affected by pipelines construction or accidental spills associated with the proposed action. The probability of an oil or chemical spill reaching designated Gulf sturgeon critical habitat is so low, it is considered

discountable.

5 STATUS OF AFFECTED SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA

The sea turtle subsections focus primarily on the Atlantic Ocean populations of these species since these are the popul ations that may be direc tly affected by the proposed action. However, these species are listed as global populations (with the exception of Kemp’s ridley and Florida green sea turtles, wh ose distribution is entirely in the Atlantic including the GOM), and the gl obal status and trends of th ese species are included as well, in order to provide a basis for our fina l determination of the effects of the proposed action on the species as listed under the ESA.

335.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle The loggerhead sea turtle was listed as a th reatened species thr oughout its global range on July 28, 1978. It was listed because of direct take, incidental capture in various fisheries, and the alteration and destruction of its habitat. Loggerhead se a turtles inhabit the

continental shelves and estuarine environments along the margins of th e Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. In the Atlantic, devel opmental habitat for small juveniles is the pelagic waters of the North Atlantic a nd the Mediterranean Sea (NMFS and USFWS, 1991a). Within the continental United States, loggerhead sea turtles nest from Texas to New Jersey. Major nesting areas include coas tal islands of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and the Atlantic and GOM coasts of Florida, with th e bulk of the nesting occurring on the Atlantic coast of Florida.

5.1.1 Pacific Ocean In the Pacific Ocean, major loggerhead nesting grounds are generally located in temperate and subtropical regions with scattered nesting in the tropics. Within the Pacific Ocean, loggerhead sea turtles are represen ted by a northwestern nesting aggregation located in Japan and a smaller southwestern nesting aggregation, whic h occurs in eastern Australia (Great Barrier Reef and Queen sland) and New Caledonia (NMFS 2001a). There are no reported loggerhead nesting site s in the eastern or central Pacific Ocean basin. Data from 1995 estimated the Japane se nesting aggregation at 1,000 female loggerhead turtles (Bolten et al. 1996). R ecent genetic analyses on female loggerheads nesting in Japan suggest that this “subpopulation” is comprised of genetically distinct nesting colonies (Hatase et al . 2002) with precise natal homing of individual females. As a result, Hatase et al. (2002) indicate that loss of one of th ese colonies would decrease the genetic diversity of Japanese loggerheads; recolonization of the site would not be expected on an ecological time scale. In Australia, long-term census data has been

collected at some rookeries since the late 1960s and early 1970s, and nearly all the data

show marked declines in ne sting populations since the mid-1980s (Limpus and Limpus 2003). The nesting aggregation in Queensland, Australia, was as low as 300 females in

1997.

Pacific loggerhead turtles are captured, injured, or killed in numerous Pacific fisheries including Japanese longline fi sheries in the western Pacific Ocean and South China Seas;

direct harvest and commercial fisheries o ff Baja California, Mexico; commercial and artisanal swordfish fisheries off Chile, Colu mbia, Ecuador, and Peru; purse seine fisheries for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean; and California/Oregon drift gillnet fisheries. In addition, the a bundance of loggerhead turtles on nesting colonies throughout the Pacific basin has declined dramatically over the past 10 to 20 years. Loggerhead

turtle colonies in the western Pacific Ocean have been reduced to a fraction of their former abundance by the combined effects of human activities that have reduced the number of nesting females and reduced the re productive success of females that manage to nest (e.g., due to egg poaching).

5.1.2 Atlantic Ocean In the western Atlantic, most loggerhead sea turtles nest from North Carolina to Florida and along the Gulf coast of Florida. Th ere are at least five western Atlantic

34subpopulations, divided geographically as follows: (1) A northern nesting subpopulation, occurring from North Carolina to northeast Florida at about 29oN; (2) a south Florida nesting subpopulation, occurring from 29oN on the east coast to Sarasota on the west coast; (3) a Florida Panhandle nesting subpopul ation, occurring at Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near Panama City, Flor ida; (4) a Yucatán nesting subpopulation, occurring on the eastern Yucatán Penins ula, Mexico (Márquez 1990, TEWG 2000); and (5) a Dry Tortugas nesting s ubpopulation, occurring in the is lands of the Dry Tortugas, near Key West, Florida (NMFS 2001a). The fi delity of nesting females to their nesting beach is the reason these subpopulations can be differentiated from one another. Fidelity for nesting beaches makes recolonization of ne sting beaches with sea turtles from other subpopulations unlikely.

Life History and Distribution Past literature gave an estim ated age at maturity of 21-35 years (Frazer and Ehrhart 1985, Frazer et al. 1994), with the benthic immature stage lasti ng at least 10-25 years. However, based on data from tag returns, strandings, and nesting surveys (NMFS 2001a), NMFS estimates ages of maturity ranging fr om 20-38 years with the benthic immature stage lasting from 14-32 years.

Mating takes place in late Ma rch through early June, and eg gs are laid throughout the summer, with a mean clutch size of 100-126 e ggs in the southeastern United States. Individual females nest multiple times dur ing a nesting season, with a mean of 4.1 nests/individual (Murphy a nd Hopkins 1984). Nesting migrations for an individual female loggerhead are usually on an interval of 2-3 years, but can vary from 1-7 years (Dodd 1988). Generally, loggerhead sea turtle s originating from the western Atlantic nesting aggregations are believed to lead a pe lagic existence in the North Atlantic Gyre for as long as 7-12 years or more. Stranding re cords indicate that when pelagic immature loggerheads reach 40-60 cm straight-line cara pace length they begi n to live in coastal

inshore and nearshore waters of the continental shelf thr oughout the U.S. Atlantic and GOM, although some loggerheads may move back and forth between the pelagic and benthic environment (Witzell 2002 ). Benthic immature loggerh eads (sea turtles that have come back to inshore and nearshore waters), the life stage following the pelagic immature stage, have been found from Cape Cod, Ma ssachusetts, to southern Texas, and occasionally strand on beaches in Northeastern Mexico.

Tagging studies have shown loggerheads that have entered the benthic environment undertake routine migrations along the co ast that are limited by seasonal water temperatures. Loggerhead sea turtles occu r year round in offshore waters off North Carolina where water temperature is influen ced by the Gulf Stream. As coastal water temperatures warm in the spring, loggerh eads begin to immigrate to North Carolina inshore waters (e.g., Pamlico and Core Sounds) and also move up the coast (Epperly et al. 1995a, Epperly et al. 1995b, Epperly et al. 1995c), occurring in Virginia foraging areas as early as April and on the most northern foraging grounds in the Gulf of Maine in

June. The trend is reversed in the fall as water temperatures cool. The large majority leave the Gulf of Maine by mid-September but some may remain in mid-Atlantic and Northeast areas until late fall. By Decembe r loggerheads have emigrated from inshore

35North Carolina waters and coastal waters to the north to waters offshore North Carolina, particularly off Cape Hatteras, and waters further south where the influence of the Gulf Stream provides temperatures favorable to sea turtles ( ≥ 11oC) (Epperly et al. 1995a, Epperly et al. 1995b, Epperly et al. 1995c). Loggerhead sea tu rtles are year-round

residents of central and south Florida.

Pelagic and benthic juveniles are omnivorous and forage on crabs, mollusks, jellyfish, and vegetation at or near the surface (Dodd 1988). Sub-adu lt and adult loggerheads are primarily coastal dwelling a nd typically prey on benthic i nvertebrates such as mollusks and decapod crustaceans in hard bottom habitats.

Population Dynamics and Status A number of stock assessments (TEW G 1998, TEWG 2000, NMFS 2001a, Heppell et al. 2003) have examined the stock status of logge rheads in the waters of the United States,

but have been unable to deve lop any reliable estimates of absolute population size. Based on nesting data of the five western Atlantic subpopulations, the south Floridanesting and the northern-nesting subpopul ations are the most abundant (TEWG 2000, NMFS 2001a). Between 1989 and 1998, the total number of nests laid along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts ranged from 53,014 to 92,182, annually with a mean of 73,751 (TEWG 2000). On average, 90.7 percent of these nests were of the south Florida subpopulation and 8.5 percent were from th e northern subpopulation (TEWG 2000). The TEWG (2000) assessment of the status of these two better-studied populations concluded that the south Florida subpopulation was incr easing at that time, while no trend was evident (may be stable but possibly declin ing) for the northern subpopulation. A more recent, yet-to-be-published analysis of nesting data from 1989-2005 by the Florida

Wildlife Research Institute indicates there is a declining trend in nesting at beaches utilized by the south Florida nesting subpopulation (2006 FWRI letter (McRae) to NMFS, based on statewide nesting beach survey data analyzed by FWRI). Nesting data obtained for the 2006 nesting season is also c onsistent with the decline in loggerhead nests (Meylan pers. comm. 2006). It is unclear at this time whether the nesting decline reflects a decline in population, or is indicative of a failure to nest by the reproductively

mature females as a result of other factor s (resource depletion, nesting beach problems, oceanographic conditions, etc.). NMFS has convened a new Turtle Expert Working Group for loggerhead sea turtles that will gather available da ta and examine the potential causes of the nesting decline and what the decl ine means in terms of population status. A final report by the loggerhead TEWG is expected by the end of summer 2007.

For the northern subpopulations, recent estimates of loggerhead nesting trends in Georgia from standardized daily beach surveys show ed significant declines ranging from 1.5 to 1.9 percent annually (Mark Dodd, Georgia Depa rtment of Natural Resources, pers. comm., 2006). Nest totals from aerial surveys conducted by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources showed a 3.3 percent annual decline in nesting since 1980. Another consideration that may add to the importance and vulnerability of the northern subpopulation is the sex ratios of this subpopulation. NMFS scientists have

estimated that the northe rn subpopulation produces 65 percent males (NMFS 2001a). However, new research conducted over a limited time frame has found opposing sex

36ratios (Wyneken et al. 2004) so further inform ation is needed to clarify the issue. Since nesting female loggerhead sea turtles exhibit nest fidelity, the continued existence of the northern subpopulation is relate d to the number of female ha tchlings that are produced. Producing fewer females will limit the number of subsequent offspring produced by the subpopulation.

The remaining three subpopulations – Dry To rtugas, Florida Panhandle, and Yucatán – are much smaller, but also relevant to the continued existence of the species. Nesting surveys for the Dry Tortugas subpopulation are conducted as part of Florida’s statewide survey program. Survey effort has been re latively stable during th e 9-year period from 1995-2003 (although the 2002 year was missed). Nest counts ranged from 168-270 but with no detectable trend during this peri od (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Rese arch Institute, Statewide Nesting Beach Survey Data). Nest counts for the Florida Panhandle subpopulat ion are focused on index beaches rather than all beaches where nesting occurs. Cu rrently, there is not enough information to detect a trend for the subpopulation (Flo rida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Rese arch Institute, Index Nesting Beach Survey Database). Similarly, nesting survey effort has been in consistent among the Yucatán nesting beaches

and no trend can be determined for this subpopulation. However, there is some optimistic news. Zurita et al. (2003) found a statistically significant increase in the

number of nests on seven of the beac hes on Quintana Roo, Mexico, from 1987-2001 where survey effort was consistent during the period.

Threats The diversity of a sea turtle’s life history leaves them sus ceptible to many natural and human impacts, including impacts while they are on land, in the benthic environment, and in the pelagic environment. Hurricanes are pa rticularly destructive to sea turtle nests.

Sand accretion and rainfall that result from these storms as well as wave action can appreciably reduce hatchling su ccess. For example, in 1992, all of the eggs over a 90- mile length of coastal Florida were destr oyed by storm surges on beaches that were closest to the eye of Hurricane Andrew (Milton et al. 1994 ). Also, many nests were destroyed during the 2004 hurricane season. Ot her sources of natural mortality include cold stunning and biotoxin exposure.

Anthropogenic factors that impact hatchlings and adult female turtles on land, or the success of nesting and hatching include: beach erosion, beach armoring and nourishment, artificial lighting, beach cleaning, increas ed human presence, recreational beach equipment, beach driving, coastal construction and fishing piers, exotic dune and beach vegetation, and poaching. An increase in hum an presence at some nesting beaches or close to nesting beaches has led to secondary threats such as the introduction of exotic fire ants, feral hogs, dogs and an increased presence of native species (e.g., raccoons, armadillos, and opossums) which raid and feed on turtle eggs. Although sea turtle nesting beaches are protected along large expans es of the northwest Atlantic coast (e.g., Merritt Island, Archie Carr, and Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuges), other areas along these coasts have limited or no protecti on. Sea turtle nesti ng and hatching success

37on unprotected high density east Florida nesti ng beaches from Indian River to Broward County are affected by all of the above threats.

Loggerhead sea turtles are affected by a comple tely different set of anthropogenic threats

in the marine environment. These include oil and gas exploration, coastal development, and transportation, marine pollution, underwat er explosions, hopper dredging, offshore artificial lighting, power plant entrainment and/or impingement, entanglement in debris, ingestion of marine debris, marina and doc k construction and opera tion, boat collisions, poaching, and fishery interactions. Loggerhead s in the pelagic environment are exposed to a series of longline fisheries, which in clude the Atlantic hi ghly migratory species (HMS) pelagic longline fisheries, an Azorean longline fleet, a Spanish longline fleet, and various longline fleets in the Mediterranean Sea (Aguilar et al. 1995, Bolten et al. 1996). Loggerheads in the benthic environment in waters off the coastal United States are exposed to a suite of fisheries in federal a nd state waters including trawl, purse seine, hook and line, gillnet, pound net, longline, a nd trap fisheries (see further discussion in Section 4.2, Environmental Baseline).

5.1.3 Summary of Status for Loggerhead Sea Turtles The abundance of loggerhead turtles on nesti ng beaches throughout the Pacific basin has declined dramatically over the past 10 to 20 years. Data from 1995 estimated the Japanese nesting aggregation at 1,000 female loggerhead turtles (Bolten et al. 1996), but it has probably declined since 1995 and continue s to decline (Tillman 2000). The nesting aggregation in Queensland, Australia, was as low as 300 females in 1997.

In the Atlantic Ocean, absolute population si ze is not known, but base d on extrapolation of nesting information, loggerheads are likely much more numerous than in the Pacific Ocean. NMFS recognizes five subpopulations of loggerhead sea turtles in the western north Atlantic based on genetic studies. C ohorts from all of these are known to occur

within the action area of this consultati on. The South Florida subpopulation may be

critical to the survival of th e species in the Atlantic Ocean because of its size (over 90 percent of all U.S. loggerhead nests are from this subpopulation). In the past, this nesting aggregation was considered second in size only to the nesting aggregation on islands in the Arabian Sea off Oman (Ross 1979, Ehrhart 1989, NMFS and USFWS 1991a). However, the status of the Oman colony has not been evaluated recently and it is located in an area of the world where it is highly vul nerable to disruptive ev ents such as political upheavals, wars, catastrophic oil spills, and lack of strong protections for sea turtles (Meylan et al. 1995). Given the lack of upda ted information on this population, the status of loggerheads in the Indian Ocean basin overall is essentially unknown.

All loggerhead subpopulations ar e faced with a multitude of natural and anthropogenic effects that negatively influence the status of the species. Many anthropogenic effects

occur as a result of activities outside of U.S. jurisdiction (i.e., fisheries in international waters).

385.2 Green Sea Turtle Federal listing of the green s ea turtle occurred on July 28, 1978, with all populations listed as threatened except for the Flor ida and Pacific coast of Mexico breeding populations, which are endangered. The nesti ng range of the green sea turtles in the southeastern United States includes sandy b eaches of mainland shores, barrier islands, coral islands, and volcanic isla nds between Texas and North Carolina, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) and Puerto Rico (NMFS a nd USFWS 1991b). Principal U.S. nesting areas for green sea turtles ar e in eastern Florida, predom inantly Brevard through Broward counties (Ehrhart and Witherington 1992). Green sea turtle nesting also occurs regularly on St. Croix, USVI, and on Vie ques, Culebra, Mona, and the main island of Puerto Rico (Mackay and Rebholz 1996).

5.2.1 Pacific Ocean Green turtles are thought to be declining thr oughout the Pacific Ocean, with the exception of Hawaii, from a combination of overexploitation and habitat loss (Seminoff 2002). In the western Pacific, the only major (>2,000 nes ting females) populations of green turtles occur in Australia and Malays ia, with smaller colonies th roughout the area. Indonesia has a widespread distribution of green turtles, but has experi enced large declines over the past 50 years. Hawaii green turtles are genetically distinct and ge ographically isolated, and the population appears to be increas ing in size despite the prevalence of fibropapilloma and spirochidi asis (Aguirre et al., 1998 in Balazs and Chaloupka 2003). In the eastern Pacific, mitochondrial DNA analys is has indicated that there are three key nesting populations: Michoacan, Mexico; Galapagos Islands, Ecuador; and Islas Revillagigedos, Mexico (Dutton 2003). There is also sporadic green turtle nesting along

the Pacific coast of Costa Rica.

5.2.2 Atlantic Ocean Life History and Distribution

The estimated age at sexual maturity for green sea turtles is betw een 20-50 years (Balazs 1982, Frazer and Ehrhart 1985). Green sea turtle mating occurs in the waters off the nesting beaches. Each female deposits 1-7 clutches (usually 2- 3) during the breeding season at 12-14 day intervals. Mean clutch size is highly variab le among populations, but averages 110-115 eggs/nest. Females usually have 2-4 or more years between breeding seasons, whereas males may mate every year (Balazs 1983). After hatching, green sea turtles go through a post-hatchling pelagic stage where they are associated with drift lines of algae and other debris. At approximately 20 to 25 cm carapace length, juveniles leave pelagic habitats and enter benthic foraging areas (Bjorndal 1997).

Green sea turtles are primarily herbivorous, feeding on algae and sea grasses, but also occasionally consume jellyfish and sponges. The post-hatchling, pelagic-stage

individuals are assumed to be omnivor ous, but little data are available.

Green sea turtle foraging areas in the sout heastern United States include any coastal shallow waters having macroalgae or sea gra sses. This includes areas near mainland coastlines, islands, reefs, or shelves, and any open-ocean surface waters, especially where

39advection from wind and currents concentr ates pelagic organisms (Hirth 1997, NMFS and USFWS 1991b). Principal benthic foraging areas in the southeastern United States include Aransas Bay, Matagorda Bay, Laguna Madre, and the Gulf inlets of Texas (Doughty 1984, Hildebrand 1982, Shaver 1994), the GOM off Florida from Yankeetown to Tarpon Springs (Caldwell and Carr 1957, Carr 1984), Florida Bay and the Florida Keys (Schroeder and Foley 1995), the Indi an River Lagoon System, Florida (Ehrhart 1983), and the Atlantic Ocean off Florid a from Brevard through Broward counties (Wershoven and Wershoven 1992, Guseman and Ehrh art 1992). Adults of both sexes are presumed to migrate between nesting and fo raging habitats along corridors adjacent to

coastlines and reefs.

Population Dynamics and Status The vast majority of green sea turtle nesting within the southeastern United States occurs in Florida (Meylan et al. 1995, Johnson and Eh rhart 1994). Green sea turtle nesting in Florida has been increasing since 1989 (F lorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Rese arch Institute Index Nesting Beach Survey Database). Current nesting levels in Flor ida are reduced compared to hi storical levels, reported by Dodd (1981). However, total nest counts and tr ends at index beach sites during the past decade suggest the numbers of green sea turtles that nest within the southeastern United States are increasing.

Although nesting activity is obviously important in determining popul ation distributions, the remaining portion of the green turtle’s li fe is spent on the foraging and developmental grounds. Some of the principal feeding pastur es in the western Atlantic Ocean include the upper west coast of Florida and the north western coast of the Yucatán Peninsula. Additional important foraging areas in the western Atlantic include the Mosquito and Indian River Lagoon systems and nearshore wo rmrock reefs between Sebastian and Ft. Pierce Inlets in Florida, Florida Bay, the Culebra archipelago and other Puerto Rico coastal waters, the south coas t of Cuba, the Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua, the Caribbean Coast of Panama, and scattered areas along Colombia and Brazil (Hirth 1997). The summer developmental habitat for green turtle s also encompasses estuarine and coastal

waters from North Carolina to as far north as Long Island Sound (Musick and Limpus 1997).

There are no reliable estimates of the number of immature green s ea turtles that inhabit coastal areas (where they come to forage) of the southeastern United States. However, information on incidental captures of immature green sea turtles at the St. Lucie Power Plant (they have averaged 215 green sea turtle captures per year sin ce 1977) in St. Lucie County, Florida (on the Atlantic coast of Florida) show that the annual number of immature green sea turtles captured has increas ed significantly in the past 26 years (FPL 2002).

It is likely that immature green sea turtles foraging in the southeastern United States come from multiple genetic stocks; therefore, the status of immature green sea turtles in the southeastern United States might also be assessed from trends at all of the main regional nesting beaches, princi pally Florida, Yucatán, and To rtuguero. Trends at Florida

40beaches were previously discussed. Trends in nesting at Yucatán beaches cannot be

assessed because of a lack of consistent b each surveys over time. Trends at Tortuguero (ca. 20,000-50,000 nests/year) showed a signific ant increase in nesting during the period 1971-1996 (Bjorndal et al. 1999), and more r ecent information continues to show increasing nest counts (Troëng and Rankin 2004). Therefore, it s eems reasonable that there is an increase in immature green s ea turtles inhabiting co astal areas of the southeastern United States; however, the magnitude of this increase is unknown.

Threats The principal cause of past de clines and extirpatio ns of green sea turtle assemblages has been the over-exploitation of green sea tu rtles for food and ot her products. Although intentional take of green sea tu rtles and their eggs is not extensive within the southeastern United States, green sea turtles that nest and forage in the region may spend large portions of their life history outside the re gion and outside U.S. jurisdiction, where exploitation is still a threat. However, there are stil l significant and ongoing threats to green sea turtles from human-related causes in the United States. These threats include beach armoring, erosion control, artificial lighting, beach di sturbance (e.g., driving on the beach), pollution, foraging habitat loss as a result of direct de struction by dredging, siltation, boat damage, other hum an activities, and interactions with fishing gear. Sea sampling coverage in the pelagic driftnet, pe lagic longline, southeas t shrimp trawl, and

summer flounder bottom trawl fisheries has recorded takes of green turtle s. There is also the increasing threat from green sea turtle fibropapillomatosis disease. Presently, this disease is cosmopolitan and has been found to affect large numbers of animals in some areas, including Hawaii and Florida (Herbs t 1994, Jacobson, 1990, Jacobson et al. 1991).

5.2.3 Summary of Status for At lantic Green Sea Turtles Green turtles range in the western Atlantic from Massachusetts to Argentina, including the GOM and Caribbean, but are considered rare in benthic areas north of Cape Hatteras (Wynne and Schwartz 1999). Green turt les face many of the same natural and anthropogenic threats as for loggerhead sea tu rtles described above. In addition, green turtles are also susceptible to fibropapillomatosis, which can result in death. In the continental United States, green turtle nesti ng occurs on the Atlantic coast of Florida (Ehrhart 1979). Recent population estimates for the western Atlantic area are not available. The pattern of green turtle nesting shows biennial peaks in abundance, with a generally positive trend during the ten years of regular monitoring since establishment of index beaches in Florida in 1989. However, given the species’ late sexual maturity, caution is warranted about over-interpreting ne sting trend data collected for less than 15

years.

5.3 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle The Kemp’s ridley was listed as endange red on December 2, 1970. Internationally, the Kemp’s ridley has been considered the mo st endangered sea turtle (Zwinenberg 1977, TEWG 2000). Kemp’s ridleys nest primarily at Rancho Nu evo, a stretch of beach in Mexico, Tamaulipas State. This species occu rs mainly in coastal areas of the GOM and

the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Occasio nal individuals reach European waters

41(Brongersma 1972). Adults of this species are usually confined to the GOM, although

adult-sized individuals sometimes are f ound on the east coast of the United States.

5.3.1 Atlantic Ocean Life History and Distribution The TEWG (1998) estimates age at maturity fr om 7-15 years. Females return to their nesting beach about every 2 years (TEWG 1998). Nesting occurs from April into July and is essentially limited to the beaches of the western GOM, near Rancho Nuevo in southern Tamaulipas, Mexico. The mean clut ch size for Kemp’s ridleys is 100 eggs/nest, with an average of 2.5 nests/female/season.

Little is known of the movements of the post- hatchling stage (pelagic stage) within the GOM. Studies have shown the post-hatchling pelagic stage varies from 1-4 or more years, and the benthic immature stage la sts 7-9 years (Schmid and Witzell 1997). Benthic immature Kemp’s ridleys have been found along the eastern seaboard of the

United States and in the GOM. Atlantic benthi c immature sea turtles travel northward as the water warms to feed in the productive, coastal waters off Georgia through New England, returning southward with the ons et of winter (Lutcavage and Musick 1985, Henwood and Ogren 1987, Ogren 1989). Studies s uggest that benthic immature Kemp's ridleys stay in shallow, warm, nearshore waters in the northern GOM until cooling waters force them offshore or south along the Florida coas t (Renaud 1995).

Stomach contents of Kemp's ridleys along th e lower Texas coast c onsisted of nearshore crabs and mollusks, as well as fish, shrimp, and other foods considered to be shrimp fishery discards (Shaver 1991). Pelagic stag e Kemp’s ridleys presumably feed on the available Sargassum and associated infauna or other epipelagic species found in the

GOM.

Population Dynamics and Status Of the seven extant species of sea turtles in the world, the Kemp's ri dley has declined to the lowest population level. Most of the population of adult females nest on the Rancho Nuevo beaches (Pritchard 1969). When nest ing aggregations at Rancho Nuevo were discovered in 1947, adult female populations were estimated to be in excess of 40,000 individuals (Hildebrand 1963). By the mid- 1980s nest numbers were below 1,000 (with a low of 702 nests in 1985). However, obser vations of increased nesting with 6,277 nests recorded in 2000, 10,000 nests in 2005, a nd 12,143 nests recorded during the 2006 nesting season (Gladys Porter Zoo nesting da tabase) show the decline in the ridley population has stopped and the popul ation is now increasing.

A period of steady increase in benthic imma ture ridleys has been occurring since 1990 and appears to be due to increased hatchl ing production and an apparent increase in

survival rates of immature sea turtles beginning in 1990. The increased survivorship of

immature sea turtles is attrib utable, in part, to the introduc tion of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in the United States and Mexican sh rimping fleets and Mexican beach protection efforts. As demonstrated by nesting increase s at the main nesting sites in Mexico, adult ridley numbers have increased over the la st decade. The population model used by

42TEWG (2000) projected that Kemp’s ridl eys could reach the Recovery Plan’s intermediate recovery goal of 10,000 nesters by the year 2015.

Next to loggerheads, Kemp’s ridleys are the second most abundant sea turtle in Virginia and Maryland waters, arriving in these area s during May and June (Keinath et al. 1987, Musick and Limpus 1997). The juvenile popu lation of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in Chesapeake Bay is estimated to be 211 to 1,083 turtles (Musick and Limpus 1997). These juveniles frequently forage in submer ged aquatic grass beds for crabs (Musick and Limpus 1997). Kemp’s ridleys consume a vari ety of crab species, including Callinectes spp., Ovalipes spp., Libinia sp., and Cancer spp. Mollusks, shrimp, and fish are consumed less frequently (Bjorndal 1997). Upon leaving Chesapeake Bay in autumn, juvenile ridleys migrate down the coast, pa ssing Cape Hatteras in December and January (Musick and Limpus 1997). These larger juve niles are joined there by juveniles of the same size from North Carolina sounds, as we ll as smaller juveniles from New York and New England, to form one of the densest concentrations of Kemp’s ri dleys outside of the GOM (Musick and Limpus 1997, Epperly et al. 1995a, Epperly et al. 1995b).

Threats Kemp’s ridleys face many of the same na tural threats as loggerheads, including destruction of nesting habitat from storm ev ents, natural predators at sea, and oceanic events such as cold-stunning. Although co ld-stunning can occur th roughout the range of the species, it may be a greater risk for sea tu rtles that utilize the more northern habitats of Cape Cod Bay and Long Island Sound. For example, in the winter of 1999-2000, there was a major cold-stunning event where 218 Ke mp’s ridleys, 54 loggerheads, and 5 green turtles were found on Cape Cod beaches (R. Prescott, pers. comm. 2001). Annual coldstunning events do not always occur at this ma gnitude; the extent of episodic major coldstunning events may be associated with numbers of turtles utilizing No rtheast waters in a given year, oceanographic conditions, and the occu rrence of storm events in the late fall. Many cold-stunned turtles can survive if found early e nough, but cold-stunning events can still represent a significant cause of natural mortality.

Although changes in the use of sh rimp trawls and other trawl g ear have helped to reduce mortality of Kemp’s ridleys, this specie s is also affected by other sources of anthropogenic impacts similar to those discus sed above. For example, in the spring of 2000, five Kemp’s ridley carcasses were r ecovered from the same North Carolina beaches where 275 loggerhead carcasses were found. Cause of death for most of the turtles recovered was unknown, but the mass mort ality event was suspect ed to have been from a large-mesh gillnet fishery operating offshore in the preceding weeks. The five ridley carcasses that were found are likely to have been only a minimum count of the number of Kemp’s ridleys that were killed or seriously injured as a result of the fishery interaction because it is unlikely that all of the carcasses washed ashore.

5.3.2 Summary of Kemp’s Ridley Status The only major nesting site for ridleys is a single stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico (Carr 1963). The number of nests observed at Rancho Nuevo and nearby beaches increased at a mean rate of 11.3 percent per year from 1985 to 1999.

43Current totals are 12,059 nests in Mexico in 2006 (August 8, 2006, e-mail from Luis

Jaime Peña - Conservation Biol ogist, Gladys Porter Zoo). Ke mp’s ridleys mature at an earlier age (7-15 years) than other chelonids, thus “lag e ffects” as a result of unknown impacts to the non-breeding life stages would like ly have been seen in the increasing nest trend beginning in 1985 (U SFWS and NMFS 1992).

The largest contributors to the decline of Kemp’s ridleys in the past were commercial and local exploitation, especially poaching of nest s at the Rancho Nuevo site, as well as the GOM trawl fisheries. The advent of TED regul ations for trawlers and protections for the nesting beaches has allowed th e species to begin to rebound. Many threats to the future of the species remain, including interactions with fishery gear, ma rine pollution, foraging habitat destruction, illegal poaching of nests and potential threats to the nesting beaches from such sources as global climate change, development, and tourism pressures.

5.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle

The leatherback sea turtle was listed as e ndangered throughout its global range on June 2, 1970. Leatherbacks are widely distributed th roughout the oceans of the world, and are found in waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans (Ernst and Barbour 1972). Leatherback sea turtles are the largest living turtles and range farthe r than any other sea turtle species. The large size of adult leat herbacks and their tolerance to relatively low temperatures allows them to occur in norther n waters such as off Labrador and in the Barents Sea (NMFS and USFWS 1995). Adu lt leatherbacks forage in temperate and subpolar regions from 71oN to 47oS lati tude in all oceans and undergo extensive migrations to and from their tropical ne sting beaches. In 1980, the leatherback population was estimated at approximatel y 115,000 adult females globally (Pritchard 1982). That number, however, is probably an overestimation as it was based on a particularly good nesting year in 1980 (P ritchard 1996). By 1995, the global population

of adult females had declined to 34,500 (Spotila et al. 1996). Pritchard (1996) also called into question the population estimates from S potila et al. (1996), and felt they may be somewhat low, because it ended the modeling on data from a particularly bad nesting year (1994) while excluding nesting data from 1995, which was a good nesting year. However, Spotila et al. (1996) represents th e best overall estimate of adult female leatherback population size.

5.4.1 Pacific Ocean Based on published estimates of nesting female abundance, leatherback populations have collapsed or have been declin ing at all major Pacific basin nesting beaches for the last two decades (Spotila et al. 1996, NMFS and US FWS 1998, Sarti et al. 2000, Spotila et al. 2000). For example, the nesting assembla ge on Terengganu, Malaysia – which was one of the most significant nesting sites in the we stern Pacific Ocean – has declined severely from an estimated 3,103 females in 1968 to two nesting females in 1994 (Chan and Liew 1996). Nesting assemblages of leatherback turt les are in decline al ong the coasts of the Solomon Islands, a historically important nesting area (D. Broderick, pers. comm., in Dutton et al. 1999). In Fiji, Thailand, Australia, and Papua New Guinea (East Papua), leatherback turtles have only been known to ne st in low densities and scattered colonies.

44Only an Indonesian nesting assemblage has remained relatively abundant in the Pacific basin. The largest extant leatherback nesti ng assemblage in the I ndo-Pacific lies on the north Vogelkop coast of Irian Jaya (Wes t Papua), Indonesia, with over 3,000 nests recorded annually (Putrawidj aja 2000, Suarez et al. 2000). During the early-to-mid 1980s, the number of female leatherback tur tles nesting on the two primary beaches of Irian Jaya appeared to be stable. Mo re recently, this population has come under increasing threats that could cau se this population to experien ce a collapse that is similar to what occurred at Terengganu, Malaysia. In 1999, for example, local Indonesian villagers started reporting drama tic declines in sea turtle popu lations near their villages (Suarez 1999). Unless hatchling and adult turtles on nesting beaches receive more protection, this population will continue to decl ine. Declines in nesting assemblages of leatherback turtles have been reported thr oughout the western Pacific region, with nesting assemblages well below abundance levels observed several decades ago (e.g

. , Suarez 1999).

In the western Pacific Ocean and South Ch ina Seas, leatherback turtles are captured, injured, or killed in numerous fisheries, in cluding Japanese longline fisheries. The poaching of eggs, killing of nesting females, human encroachment on nesting beaches, beach erosion, and egg predation by animals al so threaten leatherback turtles in the

western Pacific.

In the eastern Pacific Ocean, nesting populati ons of leatherback tu rtles are declining along the Pacific coast of Mexico and Costa Rica. According to reports from the late 1970s and early 1980s, three beaches on the Paci fic coast of Mexico supported as many

as half of all leatherback turtle nests for the eastern Pacific. Since the early 1980s, the eastern Pacific Mexican population of adult fe male leatherback turtles has declined to slightly more than 200 individuals du ring 1998-99 and 1999-2000 (Sar ti et al. 2000). Spotila et al. (2000) reported the decline of the leatherback turtle population at Playa Grande, Costa Rica, which had been the four th largest nesting colony in the world. Between 1988 and 1999, the nesting colony declined from 1,367 to 117 female leatherback turtles. Based on their models, S potila et al. (2000) estimated that the colony could fall to less than 50 females by 2003-2004. Leatherback turtle s in the eastern Pacific Ocean are captured, injured, or killed in commercial and artisanal swordfish fisheries off Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru , and purse seine fisheries for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and California/Oregon drift gilln et fisheries. Because of the limited data, we cannot provide high-certain ty estimates of the number of leatherback turtles captured, injured, or ki lled through interacti ons with these fisheries. However,

between 8-17 leatherback turtles were esti mated to have died annually between 1990 and 2000 in interactions with the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery; 500 leatherback turtles are estimated to die annually in Chil ean and Peruvian fisheries; 200 leatherback

turtles are estimated to die in direct harv ests in Indonesia; and before 1992, the North

Pacific driftnet fisheries for squid, tuna, and billfish captured an estimated 1,000 leatherback turtles each year, ki lling about 111 of them each year.

Although all causes of the declines in leatherb ack turtle colonies in the eastern Pacific have not been documented, Sarti et al. (1998) suggest that the dec lines result from egg

45poaching, adult and sub-adult mortalities incide ntal to high seas fi sheries, and natural fluctuations due to changing environmental conditions. Some published reports support this suggestion. Sarti et al. (2000) reported that female le atherback turtles have been killed for meat on nesting beach es like Píedra de Tiacoyunque, Guerrero, Mexico. Eckert (1997) reported that swordfish gillnet fisher ies in Peru and Chile contributed to the

decline of leatherback turtles in the eastern Pacific. The decline in the nesting population at Mexiquillo, Mexico, occurred at the same time that effo rt doubled in the Chilean driftnet fishery. In response to these effects, the eastern Pacific population has continued to decline, leading some researchers to conclu de that the leatherback is on the verge of extinction in the Pacific Ocean (e.g

., Spotila et al. 1996, Spotil a et al. 2000). The NMFS assessment of three nesting aggregations in its February 23, 2004, biological opinion supports this conclusion: If no action is taken to reverse th eir decline, leatherback sea turtles nesting in the Pacific Ocean either have high risks of extinction in a single human generation (for example, nesting aggregati ons at Terrenganu and Co sta Rica) or they have a high risk of declining to levels wher e more precipitous declines become almost certain (e.g., Irian Jaya) (NMFS 2004a).

5.4.2 Atlantic Ocean

In the Atlantic Ocean, leatherbacks have b een recorded as far north as Newfoundland, Canada, and Norway, and as far south as Uruguay, Argentina, and South Africa (NMFS 2001). Female leatherbacks nest from the sout heastern United States to southern Brazil

in the western Atlantic and from Mauritania to Angola in the eastern Atlantic. The most significant nesting beaches in the Atlantic, and perhaps in the world, are in French Guiana and Suriname (NMFS 2001). Genetic an alyses of leatherbacks to date indicate that within the Atlantic basin there are ge netically different nesting populations; the St. Croix nesting population (U.S. Virgin Is lands), the mainland nesting Caribbean population (Florida, Costa Rica, Suriname/French Guiana), and the Trinidad nesting population (Dutton et al. 1999). When the ha tchlings leave the ne sting beaches, they move offshore but eventually u tilize both coastal and pelagic wa ters. Very little is known about the pelagic habits of the hatchlings and juveniles, and they have not been

documented to be associated with the Sargassum areas as are other sp ecies. Leatherbacks are deep divers, with recorded dives to de pths in excess of 1,000 m (Eckert et al. 1999, Hayes et al. 2004).

Life History and Distribution

Leatherbacks are a l ong-lived species, living for over 30 years. They reach sexual maturity somewhat faster than other sea turtles (except Kemp’s ridley), with an estimated range from 3-6 years (Rhodin 1985) to 13-14 years (Zug and Parham 1996). They nest frequently (up to 10 nests per year) during a nesting season and nest about every 2-3 years. During each nesting, they produce 100 eggs or more in each clutch and, thus, can produce 700 eggs or more per nesting seas on (Schultz 1975). Ho wever, a significant portion (up to approximately 30 percent) of the eggs can be infertile. Thus, the actual proportion of eggs that can resu lt in hatchlings is less than this seasonal estimate. The eggs incubate for 55-75 days before hatchi ng. Based on a review of all sightings of

leatherback sea turtles of <145 cm curved cara pace length (ccl), Eckert (1999) found that leatherback juveniles remain in waters warm er than 26oC until they exceed 100 cm ccl.

46Although leatherbacks are the most pelagic of th e sea turtles, they enter coastal waters on a seasonal basis to feed in areas where jellyf ish are concentrated. Leatherback sea turtles feed primarily on cnidarians (me dusae, siphonophores) and tunicates.

Evidence from tag returns and strandings in the western Atlantic suggests that adult leatherback sea turtles engage in routine migrations between boreal, temperate, and tropical waters (NMFS and USFWS 1992). A 1979 aerial survey of the outer continental shelf from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape Sable, Nova Scotia showed leatherbacks to be present th roughout the area with the most numerous sightings made from the Gulf of Maine south to Long Island. Leatherbacks were sight ed in waters where depths ranged from 1-4,151 m, but 84.4 percen t of sightings were in areas where the water was less than 180 m deep (Shoop and Ke nney 1992). Leatherbacks were sighted in waters of a similar sea surface temperatur e as loggerheads; from 7-27.2oC (Shoop and Kenney 1992). However, this species appears to have a greater tolerance for colder

waters because more leatherbacks were found at the lower temperatures (Shoop and Kenney 1992). This aerial survey estimated the in-water leatherback population from near Nova Scotia, Canada to Cape Hatte ras, North Carolina at approximately 300-600

animals.

Population Dynamics and Status The status of the Atlantic leatherback populatio n is less clear than the Pacific population. The total Atlantic population si ze is undoubtedly larger than in the Pacific, but overall population trends are unclear. In 1996, the entire western Atlantic population was

characterized as stable at be st (Spotila et al. 1996), with numbers of nesting females reported to be on the order of 18,800. A subse quent analysis by Spotila (pers. comm.) indicated that by 2000, the western Atlantic nesting population had decreased to about 15,000 nesting females. The nesting aggregation in French Guiana has been declining at about 15 percent per year since 1987 (N MFS 2001). However, from 1979-1986, the number of nests was increasing at about 15 percent annually which could mean that the current 15 percent decline could be part of a nesting cycle which coincides with the erosion cycle of Guiana beaches described by Schultz (1975). In Suriname, leatherback nest numbers have shown large recent incr eases (with more than 10,000 nests per year since 1999 and a peak of 30,000 nests in 2001), and the long-term trend for the overall Suriname and French Guiana population may show an increase (Girondot 2002 in Hilterman and Goverse 2003). The number of nests in Florida and the U.S. Caribbean has been increasing at about 10.3 percent and 7.5 percent, respectivel y, per year since the early 1980s, but the magnitude of nesting is much smaller than th at along the French Guiana coast (NMFS 2001). Also, because l eatherback females can lay 10 nests per season, the recent increases to 400 nests per ye ar in Florida may represent as few as 40 individual female nesters per year.

In summary, the conflicting information regard ing the status of Atlantic leatherbacks

makes it difficult to characterize the current status. Numbers at some nesting sites are increasing, but are decreasing at other sites. Tag return data emphasize the wide-ranging

nature of the leatherback and the link betw een South American nesters and animals found

47in U.S. waters. For example, a nesting female tagged May 29, 1990, in French Guiana

was later recovered and released alive from the York River, Virginia. Another nester tagged in French Guiana on June 21, 1990, was later found dead in Palm Beach, Florida (STSSN database). Genetic studies perfor med within the Northeast Distant Fishery Experiment indicate that th e leatherbacks captured in th e Atlantic highly migratory species pelagic longline fishery were primar ily from the French Guiana and Trinidad nesting stocks (over 95 percent) . Individuals from West Afri can stocks were surprisingly

absent.

There are a number of problem s contributing to the uncertain ty of the leatherback nest counts and population assessments. The nesti ng beaches of the Guianas (Guyana, French Guiana, and Suriname) and Trinidad are by far the most important in the western Atlantic. However, beaches in this region undergo cycles of erosion and reformation, so that the nesting beaches are not consistent over time. Additionally, leatherback sea turtles do not exhibit the same degree of ne st-site fidelity demonstrated by loggerhead and other hardshell sea turtles, further c onfounding analysis of popul ation trends using nesting data. Reported declines in one count ry and reported increases in another may be the result of migration and beach changes, not true population changes. Nesting surveys, as well as being hampered by the inconsistency of the nesting beaches, are themselves inconsistent throughout the region. Survey effort varies wide ly in the seasonal coverage, aerial coverage, and actual surveyed sites. Surveys have not been conducted consistently throughout time, or have even been dropped en tirely as the result of wars, political turmoil, funding vagaries, etc. The methods va ry in assessing total numbers of nests and total numbers of females. Many sea turtle scientists agree that the Guianas (and some would include Trinidad) should be viewed as one population and that a synoptic evaluation of nesting at all beaches in the regi on is necessary to develop a true picture of population status (Reichart et al. 2001). No such region-wide assessment has been conducted recently.

The most recent, complete estimates of regiona l leatherback populations are in Spotila et al. (1996). As discussed above , nesting in the Guianas may have been declining in the late 1990s but may have increased again in th e early 2000s. Spotila et al. estimated that the leatherback population for th e Atlantic basin, including all nesting beaches in the Americas, the Caribbean, and West Africa to taled approximately 27,600 nesting females, with an estimated range of 20,082-35,133. We believe that the current population probably still lies within this range, taking into account the reported nesting declines and increases and the uncertainty surrounding them. We therefore choose to rely on Spotila et al.’s (1996) published total Atlantic popul ation estimates, rather than attempt to construct a new population estimate here, ba sed on our interpretation of the various, confusing nesting reports from areas within the region.

Threats Zug and Parham (1996) pointed out that the main threat to leatherback populations in the Atlantic is the combination of fishery-relate d mortality (especially entanglement in gear and drowning in trawls) and the intense e gg harvesting on the main nesting beaches.

48Other important ongoing threats to the populat ion include pollution, loss of nesting habitat, and boat strikes.

Of sea turtle species, leatherbacks seem to be the most vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear. This susceptibility may be th e result of their body t ype (large size, long pectoral flippers, and lack of a hard shell) , their attraction to gelatinous organisms and algae that collect on buoys and buoy lines at or near the surface, po ssibly their method of locomotion, and perhaps their attr action to the lightsticks used to attract target species in longline fisheries. They are also susceptible to entanglement in gillnets and pot/trap lines (used in various fisheries) a nd capture in trawl gear (e.g

. , shrimp trawls).

Leatherbacks are exposed to pe lagic longline fisheries in many areas of their range. Unlike loggerhead turtle interactions with l ongline gear, leatherback turtles do not usually ingest longline bait. Instead, leatherb acks are foul hooked by longline gear (e.g

. , on the flipper or shoulder area) rather than getting mouth hooked or swallowing the hook (NMFS 2001). According to observer records, an estimated 6,363 leatherback sea turtles were caught by the U.S. Atlantic tuna a nd swordfish longline fisheries between 1992- 1999, of which 88 were released dead (NMFS 2001). The U.S. fleet accounts for only 5 to 8 percent of the hooks fished in th e Atlantic Ocean, and adding up the underrepresented observed takes of the other 23 count ries that actively fi sh in the area would

lead to annual take estimate s of thousands of leatherbacks over different life stages. Basin-wide, Lewison et al . (2004) estimated that 30,000-60,000 leatherback sea turtle captures occurred in Atlantic pelagic longline fish eries in the year 2000 alone (note that multiple captures of the same individual are known to occur, so the actual number of individuals captured may not be as high).

Leatherbacks are also susceptible to entanglem ent in the lines associated with trap/pot gear used in several fisheries. From 1990-2000, 92 entangled leatherbacks were reported from New York through Maine (Dwyer et al . 2002). Additional leatherbacks stranded wrapped in line of unknown origin or with ev idence of a past entangl ement (Dwyer et al. 2002). Fixed gear fisheries in the mid-Atlan tic have also contri buted to leatherback entanglements. In North Carolina, two leathe rback sea turtles were reported entangled in a crab pot buoy inside Hattera s Inlet (D. Fletcher, pers. co mm. to S. Epperly in NMFS 2001). A third leatherback was reported entangled in a crab pot buoy in Pamlico Sound near Ocracoke. This turtle was disentangled and released alive; however, lacerations on the front flippers from the lines were eviden t (D. Fletcher, pers. comm. to S. Epperly in NMFS SEFSC 2001). In the Southeast, leathe rbacks are vulnerable to entanglement in Florida’s lobster pot and stone crab fisheries. In the U.S. Virgin Islands, where one of five leatherback strandings from 1982 to 1997 was due to entanglement (Boulon 2000),

leatherbacks have been observed with their f lippers wrapped in the line of West Indian fish traps (R. Boulon, pers. comm. to J. Braun-McNeill in NMFS SEFSC 2001). Because many entanglements of this typically pela gic species likely go unno ticed, entanglements in fishing gear may be much higher.

Leatherback interactions with the southeas t Atlantic shrimp fishery, which operates predominately from North Carolina through southeast Florida (NMFS 2002), have also

49been a common occurrence. Leatherbacks, wh ich migrate north annua lly, are likely to encounter shrimp trawls working in the coasta l waters off the Atlantic coast from Cape Canaveral, Florida, to the Virginia/North Ca rolina border. Leatherbacks also interact with the GOM shrimp fishery. For many years, TEDs required for use in these fisheries were less effective at excluding leatherbacks than the smaller, hard-shelled turtle species. To address this problem, on February 21, 2003, the NMFS issued a final rule to amend the TED regulations. Modifications to the de sign of TEDs are now required in order to exclude leatherbacks and large and sexually mature loggerhead and green turtles.

Other trawl fisheries are also known to interact with leatherb ack sea turtles. In October 2001, a Northeast Fisheries Science Center observer documented the take of a leatherback in a bottom otter trawl fishing for Loligo squid off of Delaware; TEDs are not required in this fishery. The winter tr awl flounder fishery, which did not come under the revised TED regulations, may also inte ract with leatherb ack sea turtles.

Gillnet fisheries operating in the nearshore waters of the mid-Atlantic states are also suspected of capturing, injuring, and/or killing leatherbacks when these fisherie s and leatherbacks co-occur. Data collected by the NEFSC Fisheries Obse rver Program from 1994 through 1998 (excluding 1997) indicate that a total of 37 leatherbacks were incidentally captured (16 lethally) in drift gillnets set in offshore waters from Maine to Fl orida during this period. Observer coverage for this period ranged from 54 to 92 percent.

Poaching is not known to be a problem for ne sting populations in th e continental U.S. However, in 2001 the NMFS Southeast Fisher y Science Center (SEFSC) noted that poaching of juveniles and adults was still o ccurring in the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Guianas. In all, four of the five strandi ngs in St. Croix were the result of poaching (Boulon 2000). A few cases of fishermen poach ing leatherbacks have been reported from Puerto Rico, but most of the poaching is on eggs.

Leatherback sea turtles may be more suscepti ble to marine debris ingestion than other species due to their pelagic existence and the te ndency of floating debr is to concentrate in convergence zones that adults and juveniles use for feeding areas and migratory routes (Lutcavage et al. 1997, Shoop and Kenney 1992). I nvestigations of the stomach contents

of leatherback sea turtles revealed that a substantial percentage (44 percent of the 16 cases examined) contained plastic (Mrosovsky 1981). Along the coast of Peru, intestinal contents of 19 of 140 (13 percent) leatherb ack carcasses were found to contain plastic bags and film (Fritts 1982). The presence of plastic debris in the digestive tract suggests that leatherbacks might not be able to disti nguish between prey items and plastic debris (Mrosovsky 1981). Balazs (1985) speculated th at the object might resemble a food item by its shape, color, size or even movement as it drifts about, and induce a feeding response in leatherbacks.

It is important to note that, like marine debr is, fishing gear interactions and poaching are problems for leatherbacks throughout thei r range. Entanglements are common in Canadian waters where Goff and Lien ( 1988) reported that 14 of 20 leatherbacks

encountered off the coast of Newfoundland/La brador were entangled in fishing gear

50including salmon net, herring net, gillnet, traw l line and crab pot lin e. Leatherbacks are reported taken by many other nations that pa rticipate in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries, including Taipei, Brazil, Trinid ad, Morocco, Cyprus, Venezuela, Korea, Mexico, Cuba, U.K., Bermuda, People’s Repub lic of China, Grenada, Canada, Belize, France, and Ireland (see NMFS SEFSC 2001, for a description of take records).

Leatherbacks are known to drown in fish nets set in coas tal waters of Sao Tome, West Africa (Castroviejo et al. 1994, Graff 1995). Gill nets are one of the suspected causes for

the decline in the leatherback sea turtle population in Fren ch Guiana (Chevalier et al. 1999), and gillnets targeting green and hawk sbill turtles in the waters of coastal Nicaragua also incidentally catch leatherback turtles (Lagueux et al . 1998). Observers on shrimp trawlers operating in the north eastern region of Venezuela documented the capture of six leatherbacks from 13,600 trawls (Marcano and Alio-M 2000). An estimated 1,000 mature female l eatherback sea turtles are caug ht annually in fishing nets off of Trinidad and Tobago with mortality estimated to be between 50 to 95 percent (Eckert and Lien 1999). However, many of th e turtles do not die as a result of drowning,

but rather because the fishermen butcher them in order to get them out of their nets (NMFS 2001).

5.4.3 Summary of Leatherback Status

In the Pacific Ocean, the abundance of leatherb ack turtle nesting individuals and colonies has declined dramatically over the past 10 to 20 years. Nesting colonies throughout the

eastern and western Pacific Ocean have been reduced to a fraction of their former abundance by the combined effects of human activities that have reduced the number of nesting females. In addition, egg poaching has reduced the reproductive success of the remaining nesting females. At current rates of decline, leatherback turtles in the Pacific basin are a critically endangered species with a low probability of surviving and recovering in the wild.

In the Atlantic Ocean, our unders tanding of the status and tren ds of leatherback turtles is much more confounded, although the picture does not appear nearly as bleak as in the

Pacific. The number of female leatherbacks re ported at some nesting sites in the Atlantic Ocean has increased, while at others they have decreased. Some of the same factors that led to precipitous declines of leatherbacks in the Pacific al so affect leatherbacks in the Atlantic: leatherbacks are captured and killed in many kinds of fishi ng gear and interact with fisheries in state, federal, and inte rnational waters. Poaching is a problem and

affects leatherbacks that occur in U.S. wate rs. Leatherbacks also appear to be more susceptible to death or injury from ingesti ng marine debris than other turtle species.

5.5 Sperm Whale

Distribution The sperm whale is the larges t of the toothed whales, reaching a length of 18.3 meters in males and 12.2 meters in females (Odell 1992). Sp erm whales are distributed in all of the world's seas and oceans. For the purposes of management, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) defines four stocks: the North Pacific, the North Atlantic, the Northern Indian Ocean, and Southern Hemis phere. However, Dufault et al.'s (1999)

51review of the curren t knowledge of sperm whales indi cates no clear picture of the worldwide stock structure of sperm whales.

In general, females and immature sperm whales appear to be restricted in range, whereas males are found over a wider range and appear to make occasional movements across and between ocean basins (Dufault et al. 1999). Females and juveniles form pods that are generally within tropical and temperate latitudes between 50 ° N and 50 ° S, while the solitary adult males can be found at higher latitu des between 75 o N and 75 o S (Reeves and Whitehead 1997). The home ranges of indivi dual females seem to span distances of approximately 1,000 km (Best 1979, Dufault and Whitehead 1995). However, occasionally females travel several thousand kilometers across large parts of an ocean basin (Kasuya and Miyashita 1988). In the western North Atlantic they range from

Greenland to the GOM and the Caribbean.

Sperm whales generally occur in waters grea ter than 180 meters in depth. While they may be encountered almost anywhere on th e high seas, their distribution shows a preference for continental margins, sea m ounts, and areas of upwelling, where food is abundant. Waring et al. (1993) su ggest sperm whale distribution in the Atlantic is closely correlated with the Gulf Stream edge. Bull sperm whales migrate much farther poleward than the cows, calves, and young males. Because most of the breeding herds are confined almost exclusively to warmer waters, many of the larger mature males return in the

winter to the lower latitudes to breed.

Life history Female sperm whales attain sexual maturity at the mean age of 8 or 9 years and a length of about 9 m (Kasuya 1991, see Würsig et al . 2000). The mature females ovulate April through August in the Northern Hemisphere. During this season one or more large mature bulls temporarily join each breeding school. A single calf is born at a length of about 4 m, after a 15 to 16 month gestation period. Sperm whales exhibit alloparental (the assistance by individuals other than the pa rents in the care of offspring) guarding of young at the surface (Whitehead 1996), and al loparental nursing (Reeves and Whitehead 1997). Calves are nursed for 2 to 3 years (i n some cases, up to 13 years); and the calving

interval is estimated to be about 4 to 7 years (Kasuya 1991, see Würsig et al. 2000).

Males have a prolonged puberty and attain se xual maturity at between age 12 and 20, and a body length of 12 m, but may require another 10 years to become large enough to successfully compete for breeding rights (Kasuya 1991, see Würsig et al. 2000).

Bachelor schools consist of ma turing males who leave the br eeding school and aggregate in loose groups of about 40 animals. As the males grow older they separate from the bachelor schools and remain solitary most of the year (Best 1979).

The age distribution of the sperm whale popul ation is unknown, but they are believed to live at least 60 years. Potential sources of natural mortality in sperm whales include killer whales and the papilloma virus (Lambertsen et al. 1987).

52Cephalopods (i.e., squid, octopi, cuttlefishes, and nautili) ar e the main dietary component of sperm whales. The ommast rephids, onychoteuthids, cranchids, and enoploteuthids are the cephalopod families that are numerically impo rtant in the diet of sperm whales in the GOM (Davis et al. 2002). Other populations are known to also take significant quantities of large demersal and mesopelagic sharks, skates, and bony fishes, especially mature males in higher latitudes (Clarke 1962, 1979). Postulated feeding and hunting methods include lying suspended and relatively moti onless near the ocean floor and ambushing prey; attracting squid and other prey with bi oluminescent mouths; or stunning prey with ultrasonic sounds (Norris and Mohl 1983, and Berzin 1971, as cited in Würsig et al. 2000). Sperm whales occasionally drown afte r becoming entangled in deep-sea cables that wrap around their lowe r jaw, and non-food objects have been found in their stomachs, suggesting these animals may at times cruise the ocean floor with open mouths (Würsig et al. 2000, Rice 1989).

Diving and social behavior Sperm whales are noted for thei r ability to make prolonged, deep dives, and are likely the deepest and longest diving mammal. Typical foraging dives last 40 minutes and descend to about 400 m, followed by approximately 8 minutes of resting at the surface (Gordon 1987, Papastavrou et al. 1989). However, dives of over 2 hours and deeper than 3.3 km have been recorded (Clarke 1976) and indivi duals may spend extended periods of time at

the surface to recover. Des cent rates recorded from echo-sounders were approximately 1.7 m/sec and nearly vertical (Goold and J ones 1995). There are no data on diurnal differences in dive depths in sperm whales . Dive depth may be dependent upon temporal variations in prey abundance.

Vocalizations and hearing Evidence suggests that the disp roportionately large head of the sperm whale is an adaptation to produce acoustic signals (No rris and Harvey 1972, Cranford 1992). This suggests that vocalizations ar e extremely important to sperm whales. The function of vocalizations is relatively well-studied (W eilgart and Whitehead 1997, Goold and Jones 1995). Long series of monotonous, regularly sp aced clicks are associated with feeding and are thought to be produced for echolo cation. Sperm whales also utilize unique stereotyped click sequence "codas" (Mu llins et al. 1988, Watkins 1977, Adler-Fenchel 1980, Watkins et al. 1985), according to Weilgart and Whitehead (1988) to possibly convey information about the age, sex, and repr oductive status of th e sender. Groups of closely related females and their offspring have group-specific di alects (Weilgart and Whitehead 1997).

Population status and trend The primary factor for the population d ecline that precipitated ESA listing was commercial whaling in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries for ambergris and spermaceti. The IWC estimates that nearly a quarter-milli on sperm whales were killed worldwide in whaling activities between 1800 and 1900. From 1910 to 1982, there were nearly 700,000 sperm whales killed worldwide from whaling activities (IWC Statistics 1959- 1983). Sperm whales have been protected fr om commercial harvest by the IWC since 1981, although the Japanese continued to harves t sperm whales in the North Pacific until

531988 (Reeves and Whitehead 1997). Since th e ban on nearly a ll hunting of sperm whales, there has been little evidence that direct effect s of anthropogenic causes of mortality or injury are signifi cantly affecting the recovery of sperm whale stocks (Perry et al. 1999, Waring et al. 2002), yet the effects of these ac tivities on the behavior of sperm whales has just recently begun to be studied. Presently, the global population of sperm whales is estimated to be at 32 pe rcent of its pre-whalin g number (Whitehead 2002).

Impacts of human activities Documented takes of sperm whales primarily involve offshore fisheries such as the offshore lobster pot fishery a nd pelagic driftnet and longlin e fisheries. Sperm whales have learned to depredate sablefish from longlin e gear in the Gulf of Alaska and toothfish from longline operations in the South Atlantic Ocean. No dire ct injury or mortality has been recorded during hauling ope rations, but lines have had to be cut when whales were caught on them (Ashford et al. 1996). B ecause of their generally more offshore

distribution and their benthi c feeding habits, sperm whales are less subject to entanglement than are right or humpback whales . Sperm whales have been taken in the pelagic drift gillnet fishery for swordfish, a nd could likewise be taken in the shark drift gillnet fishery on occasions when they may occur more nearshore, although this likely does not occur often. Although no interacti on between sperm whales and the longline fishery have been recorded in the U.S. Atlantic, as noted ab ove, such interactions have

been documented elsewhere. The South east U.S. Marine Mammal Stranding Network received reports of 16 sperm whales that stranded along the GOM coastline from 1987 to 2001 in areas ranging from Pinellas County, Flor ida to Matagorda County, Texas. One of these whales had deep, parallel cuts posteri or to the dorsal ridge that were believed to be caused by the propeller of a large vessel; this trauma wa s assumed to be the proximate cause of the stranding. Due to the offshore distribution of this species, inte ractions that do occur are less likely to be reported th an those involving right, humpback, and fin whales occurring in nearshore areas.

5.6 Gulf Sturgeon NMS and the FWS listed the Gulf sturge on, also known as the GOM sturgeon, as a threatened species on September 30, 1991 (56 CFR 49653). The present range of the Gulf sturgeon extends from Lake Pontchartrai n and the Pearl River system in Louisiana and Mississippi east to the Suwannee River in Florida. Sporadic occurrences have been

recorded as far west as the Rio Grande Rive r between Texas and Mexico, and as far east and south as Florida Bay (Wooley and Crateau 1985, Reynolds 1993).

Life history The Gulf sturgeon is an anadromous fish; adults spawn in freshwater then migrate to feed and grow in estuarine/marine habitats. After spawning in the upper river reaches, both adult and subadult Gulf sturgeon migrate from the estuaries, bays, and the GOM to the coastal rivers in early spring (i.e., March th rough May) when rive r water temperatures range from 16 to 23oC (Huff 1975, Carr 1983, Wooley and Crateau 1985, Odenkirk 1989, Clugston et al. 1995, Foster and Clugst on 1997, Fox and Hightower 1998, Sulak and Clugston 1999, Fox et al. 2000). Fall downstr eam migration from the river into the

54estuary/GOM begins in September (at wate r temperatures around 23oC) and continues through November (Huff 1975, Wooley and Cr ateau 1985, Foster and Clugston 1997).

Most subadult and adult Gulf sturgeon spend cool months (October or November through March or April) in estuarine areas, bays, or in the GOM (Odenki rk 1989, Foster 1993, Clugston et al. 1995, and Fox et al. 2002). Research indicates that in the estuary/marine

environment both subadult and ad ult Gulf sturgeon show a preference for sandy shoreline habitats with water depths less than 3.5 m and salinity less than 6.3 parts per thousand (Fox and Hightower 1998). The majority of tagged fish have been located in areas lacking seagrass (Fox et al. 2002) , in shallow shoals 1.5 to 2.1 m and deep holes near passes (Craft et al. 2001), and in unvegetated, fi ne to medium-grain sand habitats, such as sandbars, and intertidal and subtidal ener gy zones (Menzel 1971, Abele and Kim 1986). These shifting, predominantly sandy, areas s upport a variety of potential prey items including estuarine crustaceans, small biva lve mollusks, ghost shrimp, small crabs, various polychaete worms, and lancel ets (Menzel 1971, Abele and Kim 1986, AFS 1989, and M. Brim, USFWS pers. comm. 2002).

Once subadult and adult Gulf sturgeon migrate from the river to the estuarine/marine environment, having spent at least 6 months in the river fasting, it is presumed that they immediately begin foraging. Upon exiting the rivers, Gulf sturgeon are found in high

concentrations near their nata l river mouths; these lakes a nd bays at the mouth of the river are important because they offer the first opportunity fo r Gulf sturgeon to forage. Specifics regarding Gulf sturgeon diet items and foraging are discussed within Section IV (Effects of the Action) of this biological opinion.

Gulf sturgeon are long-lived, with some i ndividuals reaching at least 42 years in age (Huff 1975). Age at sexual maturity for fema les ranges from 8 to 17 years, and for males from 7 to 21 years (Huff 1975). Chapman et al . (1993) estimated that mature female Gulf sturgeon weighing between 29 and 51 kg produce an average of 400,000 eggs.

Based on the fact that male Gulf sturgeon ar e capable of annual spawning, and females require more than one year between spaw ning events (Huff 1975, Fox et al. 2000), we assume that the Gulf sturgeon are similar to Atlantic sturgeon ( A. o. oxyrhinchus ); that is, they exhibit a long inter-spawning period, w ith females spawning at intervals ranging from every 3 to 5 years, and males every 1 to 5 years (Smith 1985). Spawning occurs in the upper river reaches in the spring when water temperature is around 15 o to 20 o C. While Sulak and Clugston (1999) suggested that sturgeon spawning activity is related to moon phase, other researchers have found little evidence of spawning associated with lunar cycles (Slack et al. 1999, Fox et al. 2000). Fertilization is external; females deposit their eggs on the river bottom and male s fertilize them. Gulf sturgeon eggs are demersal, adhesive, and vary in color fr om gray to brown to black (Vladykov and Greeley 1963, Huff 1975, Pa rauka et al. 1991).

Genetic studies conclude that Gulf sturgeon exhi bit river-specific fidelity. Stabile et al. (1996) analyzed tissue taken from Gulf st urgeon in eight draina ges along the GOM for genetic diversity; they note d significant differences am ong Gulf sturgeon stocks, and

55suggested region-specific affi nities and likely river-specific fidelity. Five regional or river-specific stocks (from west to east) have been identifi ed: (1) Lake Pontchartrain and Pearl River, (2) Pascagoula River, (3) Es cambia and Yellow Rivers, (4) Choctawhatchee River, and (5) Apalachicola, Ochlockonee, a nd Suwannee Rivers (Sta bile et al. 1996).

Tagging studies also indicate that Gulf sturge on exhibit a high degr ee of river fidelity (Carr 1983). Of 4,100 fish tagged, 21 percent (860/4100 fish) were later recaptured in the river of their initial collection, eight fish (0.009 percent) moved between river systems, and the remaining fish (78 percent) have not yet been re captured (USFWS et al. 1995). There is no information documenting the presen ce of spawning adults in non-natal rivers. However, there is some evid ence of inter-riverin e (from natal rivers into non-natal) movements by both male and female Gulf sturgeon (n=22) (Wooley and Crateau 1985, Carr et al. 1996, Craft et al. 2001, Ross et al. 2001b, Fox et al. 2002). It is important to note that gene flow is low in Gulf sturge on stocks, with each stock exchanging less than one mature female per generation (Waldman and Wirgin 1998).

A full discussion of the life history of this subspecies may be found in the September 30, 1991, final rule listing the Gulf sturgeon as a threatened speci es (56 FR 49653), the Recovery/Management Plan approved by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in September 1995, and the final rule designati ng Gulf sturgeon cri tical habitat (68 FR 13370).

Population dynamics and status Gulf sturgeon occur in most major tri butaries of the northeastern GOM, from the Mississippi River east to Florida’s Suwannee River, and in the central and eastern

nearshore Gulf waters as far south as Char lotte Harbor (Wooley and Crateau 1985). In Florida, Gulf sturgeon are present in the Escambia, Yellow, Blackwater, Choctawhatchee, Apalachicola, Ochlockonee, and Suwannee Rivers (Reynolds 1993).

While little is known about the abundance of Gulf sturgeon throughout most of its range, population estimates have been calculated for the Apalachicola, Choctawhatchee, and

Suwannee Rivers. The USFWS calcula ted an average (from 1984-1993) of 115 individuals (> 45 cm TL) over-summering in the Apalachicola River below Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam (USFWS et al. 1995). Preliminary estimates of the Gulf sturgeon subpopulation in the Choctawhatchee River system are 2,000 to 3,000 fish over 61 cm TL. The Suwannee River Gulf sturge on population (i.e., fish > 60 cm TL and older than age 2) has recently been calcul ated at approximately 7,650 individuals (Sulak and Clugston 1999). Although the size of the Suwannee River population is considered stable, the population structure is high ly dynamic as indicated by length frequency histograms (Sulak and Clugston 1999). Strong and weak year classe s coupled with the regular removal of larger fish (by natural mortality) limits the growth of the Suwannee River population but stabilizes the average population size (Sulak and Clugston 1999).

6 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

This section contains a description of th e effects of past and ongoing human activities leading to the current status of the species, their habitat, and the ecosystem, within the

56action area. The environmental baseline is a snapshot of the factor s affecting the species and includes federal, state, tr ibal, local, and private actions already affecting the species, or that will occur contemporaneously with the consultation in progress. Unrelated, future federal actions affecting the same species that have completed formal or informal consultation are also part of the environmen tal baseline, as are implemented and ongoing

federal and other actions within the acti on area that may benefit listed species.

6.1 Status of Listed Species in the Action Area Sea turtles found in the action area may travel widely throughout the Atlantic, GOM, and Caribbean Sea; therefore, individuals found in the action area can pot entially be affected by activities anywhere with in this wide range.

Leatherback Sea Turtle

The leatherback is the most abundant sea turtle in waters over the northern GOM continental slope (Mullin and Hoggard 2000). Leatherbacks appear to spatially use both continental shelf and slope habitats in the GOM (Fritts et al. 1983, Collard 1990), but primarily utilize pelagic waters >200 m (Davis and Fargion 1996) throughout the northern GOM. Recent surveys suggest that the region from the Mississippi Canyon to DeSoto Canyon, especially near the shelf edge , appears to be an important habitat for leatherbacks (Mullin and Hoggard 2000). Surv eys of sea turtles in the eastern GOM reported densities of 0.0026 individuals/km 2 (95 percent CI = 0.0004 - 0.0140) in 0-10

fathoms and 0.0029 individuals/km 2 (95 percent CI = 0.0015 - 0.0057) in 10-40 fathoms (Epperly et al. 2002). Leatherb acks are year-round inhabitants in the GOM with frequent sightings during both summer and winter (Mullin and Hoggard 2000). Temporal variability and abundance suggest that specific areas may be important to this species, either seasonally or for short periods of time.

Green Sea Turtle

Green sea turtles are found th roughout the GOM. They occur in small numbers over seagrass beds along the south Texas and the Florida GOM coasts. Areas known as important feeding areas include the Homosa ssa River, Crystal River, and Cedar Key, Florida, and seagrass meadows and algae-lade n jetties along the Texas coast. Sea turtle surveys in the eastern GOM have repor ted densities of 0.0021 individuals/km 2 (95 percent CI = 0.0006 - 0.0075) in 0-10 fathoms and 0.0137 individuals/km 2 (95 percent CI = 0.0060 - 0.0317) in 10-40 fat homs (Epperly et al. 2002).

Kemp = s Ridley Sea Turtle

The nearshore waters of the GOM are beli eved to provide important developmental habitat for juvenile Kemp's ri dley sea turtles. Ogren (1988) suggests that the GOM coast, from Port Aransas, Texas, through Cedar Key, Florida, represents the primary habitat for subadult ridleys in the northe rn GOM. This species generally remains within the 50-m isobath of coastal areas throughout the GOM (Renaud 2001). Surveys of sea turtles in the eastern GOM reported dens ities of 0.0079 individuals/km 2 (95 percent CI = 0.0030 - 0.0207) in 0-10 fathoms and 0.0011 individuals/km 2 (95 percent CI = 0.0004 - 0.0035) in 10-40 fathoms (Epperly et al. 2002). Stomach contents from Kemp’s ridleys also

indicate a nearshore distributi on by their prey distribution whic h is consistent with other

57reported density estimates of 0.065 turtles per km 2 in 0-10 fathoms compared to a decrease of 0.013 turtles per km 2 in 10-40 fathoms (Epperly et al. 2002).

Loggerhead Sea Turtle

The nearshore waters of the GOM are beli eved to provide important developmental habitat for loggerhead sea tu rtles. Loggerhead nesting along the GOM coast occurs primarily along the Florida Panhandle, alt hough some nesting has been reported from Texas through Alabama as well (NMFS and FW S 1991b). Surveys of sea turtles in the eastern GOM resulted in reported densities of 0.0532 individuals/km 2 (95 percent CI = 0.0295 - 0.0961) in 0-10 fathoms and 0.0452 individuals/km 2 (95 percent CI = 0.0233 - 0.0880) in 10-40 fathoms (Epperly et al. 2002) . Loggerhead abundance does not appear to be significantly different between winter and summer mont hs over shelf waters in the GOM (Davis et al. 2000a, 200b). Although l oggerheads are widely distributed during both summer and winter, their abundance in surface waters over the continental slope may be greater during winter than in summer (Mullin and Hoggard 2000), and many sightings occurred near the 100-m isobath (D avis et al. 2000a, 200b). Sightings of loggerheads in waters over the continental slope suggest that they may be in transit through these waters to distant foraging sites or seeking warmer waters during the winter. The majority of sightings have occurred in waters over the continental shelf, although many sightings have been reported over the continental slope.

In addition to some distribution over the slop e waters, surface sightings of this species have also been made over the outer slope, approaching the 2,000-m isobath. Loggerheads found in deep waters may be trav eling to distant nesting beaches, traveling between forage sites on distant and disjunct areas of the continental shelf, or seeking warmer waters during winter (Davis et al. 2000a, 200b).

Sperm whale Sperm whale pods have been observed thr oughout the GOM from the upper continental slope near the 100-m isobath to the seaward extent of the United States EEZ and beyond, from sightings data collected from NOAA cruises from 1991 to 2000 (Roden and Mullin 2000, Baumgartner et al. 2001, Burks et al. 2001). Based on NOAA surveys, opportunistic sightings, whali ng catches, and stranding reco rds, sperm whales in the GOM occur year-round. Sperm whales appear to favor water depths of about 1,000 m and appear to be concentrated in at least two geographic regions of the Northern GOM: an area off the Dry Tortugas and offshore of the Mississippi River delta (Maze-Foley and Mullin 2006); however, distribution also appears influenced by occurrence and movement of cyclonic/anti-cycl onic currents in the GOM. Da vis et al. (2000a) noted the presence of a resident, breeding population of endangered sperm whales within 50 km of the Mississippi River Delta and suggested that this area may be essential habitat for sperm whales. The Southeast United St ates Marine Mammal Stranding Network received reports of 17 sperm whales that stranded along the GOM coastline from 1987 to 2003 in areas ranging from Pinellas County, Flor ida, to Matagorda County, Texas. The GOM sperm whale abundance has most recent ly been estimated at 1,349 whales (CV = 0.23) (Mullin and Fulling 2003), calculated from an average of estimates from surveys

conducted between 1996 and 2001.

58The GOM stock is comprised of mostly fema les and calves, although large mature bulls have been recently sighted in the GOM. Base d on seasonal aerial surveys, sperm whales are present in the northern GOM in all seas ons, but sightings in the northern GOM are more common during the summer months (Dav is et al. 2000a). Based on recent survey efforts, sperm whales concentrations are regularly sighted, and the boundaries of these

areas of concentration in the Northern GOM appear to be approximately 86.5 o W to

90.0 o W, north of 27.0 o N (Mullin 2002), and off southern Florida in an area approximately

86.5 o W to 85.5 o W, 24.0 o N to 26.0 o N (Mullin 2002); however, sperm whales have been reported throughout the GOM in waters greater than 200 m.

Recent research on the genetic stock st ructure of GOM sperm whales, gender composition, and kinship patterns duri ng 2000, 2001 and 2002 indicate a distinct matrilineal population structure of sperm whales in the GOM (Engelhaupt pers. comm. 2003). In this study, 89 individuals (inc luding satellite-tagged, D-tag tagged, opportunistic, and stranded whales) we re genotyped using both mtDNA and microsatellite techniques and gender determin ed using molecular sexing techniques. The majority of whales sampled from groups thr oughout the north-central GOM fit the classic ‘mixed’ group scenario, comprised of fema les and subadults of both sexes. A comparative analysis of matrilineal ntDNA a nd biparentally inherited nuclear genetic markers has begun to show population structure for these female lineages. Only four mtDNA haplotypes were found in the northern Gulf, with two bei ng unique on a global scale to this geographic area.

Gulf Sturgeon The Gulf sturgeon is found in the GOM prim arily from Tampa Bay, Florida west to the mouth of the Mississippi River. The action area includes the entire geographic range of the species, all five genetically distinct Gu lf sturgeon river-specifi c stocks, and winter habitat for all known (seven) reproduc ing riverine populations.

Gulf sturgeon will be present in the projec t area from about September through May; they are not likely to be present in the project area in the summer (approximately May to September) when they are upstream at spawning areas. Upstream migration from the estuarine/marine area to riverine spawning areas occurs in early spring (i.e., March through May) when river water temperatures range from 16 E to 23 E C (Huff 1975, Carr 1983, Wooley and Crateau 1985, Odenkirk 1989, Clugston et al. 1995, Foster and Clugston 1997, Fox and Hightower 1998, Su lak and Clugston 1999, Fox et al. 2000). Fall downstream migration from the river into the estuary/marine environment is cued by water temperature (around 23 E C), generally beginning in September and continuing through November (Huff 1975, Wooley and Crateau 1985, Foster and Clugston 1997).

Gulf sturgeon use the lower riverine, estu arine, and marine environment from about September through May for feeding and migratio n. Following a period of fasting in the river, the Gulf sturgeon are presumed to begi n foraging as soon as they enter suitable brackish and marine habitat; they have been located in seagrass and sand in depths of 1.5 to 5. 9 m (Fox and Hightower 1998, Craft et al . 2001, Parauka et al. in press) which supports a variety of potential prey items in cluding estuarine crustaceans, small bivalve

59mollusks, and lancelets (Menzel 1971, Abele 1986, AFS 1989). In the estuarine/marine environment, Gulf sturgeon must consume sufficient prey to not only regain the body weight lost during the summer in the riverine environmen t, they must also obtain enough energy necessary for growth and reproducti on (Fox et al. 2002, Murie and Parkyn pers. comm.). In addition to foraging, the Gulf stur geon are migrating within the project area between habitats and, more rarely, between rivers.

6.2 Federal Actions In recent years, NMFS has undertaken numerou s ESA section 7 consultations to address the effects of federally-permitted fisheries and other federal actions on threatened and endangered listed species in th e action area. Each of t hose consultations sought to develop ways of reducing the probability of adverse effects of the action on listed species. Similarly, recovery actions NMFS has undertaken under the ESA are addressing the problem of take of listed species in the fishing a nd shipping industries and other activities such as COE dredging operations. The summary below of anticipated sources of incidental take of listed species from fe deral actions includes only those actions which have already concluded or are currently unde rgoing formal section 7 consultation.

Fisheries Adverse effects on threatened and endangered sea turtles from seve ral types of fishing gear occur in the action area. These gears, including gillnet, hook-and-line (i.e., vertical line), and trawl gear have all been documented as interacting with sea turtles. For all fisheries for which there is a fishery manage ment plan (FMP) or for which any federal action is taken to manage that fishery, the impacts have been ev aluated via section 7

consultation. Formal section 7 consulta tions have been conducted on the following fisheries: the HMS shark fishery and the s outheast shrimp trawl fishery. An ITS has

been issued for the take of sea turtles in each of the fisheries. A summary of each consultation is provided belo w but more detailed information can be found in the respective biological opinions (NMFS 2001b; NMFS 2002; NMFS 2003).

The Southeast shrimp trawl fishery affects more sea turtles than all other activities combined (NRC 1990). NMFS completed the biological opinion (NMFS 2002a) for shrimp trawling in the southeastern United States under proposed re visions to the TED regulations (68 FR 8456, Februa ry 21, 2003). This biological opinion determined that the shrimp trawl fishery under the revised TED regulations would not jeopardize the continued existence of any sea turtle species. This determination was based, in part, on the biological opinion’s analysis that shows th e revised TED regulations are expected to reduce shrimp trawl related mortality by 94 percent for loggerheads and 97 percent for

leatherbacks.

GOM shark fisheries include commercial shar k bottom longline and drift gillnet fisheries

and recreational shark fisheries under the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP). The shark bottom longline and drif t gillnet fisheries were both found likely to adversely affect sea turtles. An ESA section 7 consultation was completed on October 29, 2003, on the continued operation of those fi sheries and the July 2003, Proposed Rule for Draft Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP (NMFS 2003a). The biological opinion

60concluded the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed sea turtles. An ITS was provi ded authorizing non-le thal takes.

On June 1, 2004, NMFS completed a biological opinion on the continued operation of the Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fishery and reef fish fisher y in the Atlantic, GOM, and Caribbean under proposed rules changing g ear and management measures to, among other things, require the use of only large circle hooks in the fishery. The biological opinion found that the continued prosecution of the pelagic longline fishery was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of l eatherback sea turtles. However, NMFS implemented an RPA to allow for the continua tion of the pelagic longline fishery without jeopardizing that species. The provisions of the RPA included measures to: (1) Reduce post-release mortality of leatherbacks; (2) improve monitoring of the effects of the fishery; (3) confirm the effec tiveness of the hook and bait combinations that are required as part of the proposed action; and (4) ta ke management action to avoid long-term

elevations in leatherback take s or mortality. All other sea turtles were found not likely to be jeopardized. An ITS was provided.

On February 12, 2005, NMFS issued a bi ological opinion (NMFS 2005c) on the

continued authorization of reef fish fishing under the GOM re ef fish fishery management plan (RFFMP) and proposed amendment 23. Th e fishery uses three basic types of gear: spear and powerhead, trap and hook-and-line gear. Hook-and-line gear used in the fishery includes both commercial bottom longline and commercia l and recreational vertical line (e.g., handline, ba ndit gear, rod and reel). Th e biological opinion concluded that loggerhead, leatherback, hawksbill, gree n, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles may be adversely affected by operation of the fish ery and an ITS was provided. However, the proposed action was not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any of these species.

Formal section 7 consultations have also been conducted for the issuance of several exempted fishing permits (EFP). These biol ogical opinions have c oncluded the proposed activities may adversely affect but were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any sea turtles. ITSs for each EFP issued were provided.

Vessel Operation

Potential sources of adverse effects from federal vessel operations in the action area include operations of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Navy (USN), Air Force and Coast Guard (USCG), the USEPA, NOAA, and the COE. The NMFS has conducted formal consultations with the USCG, the USN, and NOAA on their vessel operations.

NMFS has also conducted section 7 consultati ons with vessel traffic related to energy projects in the GOM (MMS, FERC, and MARA D) to implement conservation measures. Through the section 7 process, where applic able, the NMFS has and will continue to

establish conservation measures for all th ese agency vessel operations to avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed species. At the present time, however, they present the potential for some level of interaction. Priv ate vessels participate in high-speed marine

events concentrated in the southeastern Unite d States and are a particular threat to sea turtles, and occasionally to marine mammals as well. The magnitude of these marine

61events is not currently know n. NMFS and the USCG (who permit these events) are in consultation on these events, but a thorough anal ysis has not been completed. Refer to the biological opinions for the USCG (NMFS 1995; NMFS 1996; NMFS 1998) and the USN (NMFS 1997a) for detail on the scope of vessel operations for these agencies and conservation measures being implemente d as standard operating procedures.

Since the USN consultation only covered opera tions out of Mayport, Florida, potential still remains for USN vessels to adversely a ffect sea turtles when they are operating in other areas within the range of these species. Similarly, operations of vessels by other Federal agencies within the action area (NOAA, USEPA, COE) may adversely affect sea turtles. However, the in-water activities of those agencies are limited in scope, as they operate a limited number of vessels or are e ngaged in research/operational activities that are unlikely to contribute a large amount of risk.

Military Operations The air space over the GOM is used extensiv ely by the Department of Defense (DoD) for conducting various air-to-air and air-to-surf ace operations. Nine military warning areas

and five water test areas are located w ithin the GOM. The western GOM has four warning areas that are used for military operations. The areas total approximately 21 million acres (ac) or 58% of the area. In addition, six blocks in the western GOM are used by the Navy for mine warfare testing and training. The central GOM has five designated military warning areas that are used for military operations. These areas total approximately 11.3 million ac. Portions of the Eglin Water Test Areas (EWTA) comprise an additional 0.5 million ac in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The total 11.8

million ac is about 25% of the area of the CPA.

NMFS has recently completed four consulta tion on Eglin Air Force Base testing and training activities in the GOM . These activities have not been found to adversely Gulf sturgeon or sperm whales, but ha ve concluded that the incident al take of sea turtles in likely to occur. These biological opinion have issued incidental take for these actions: loggerheads, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and gr een sea turtles for the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (NMFS 2004c), the Precision Strike Weapons Tests (NMFS 2005a), and

the Santa Rosa Island Mission Utilizati on Plan (NMFS 2005b); and loggerheads, a Kemp’s ridley, and a green sea turtle for th e Naval Explosive Ordna nce Disposal School (NMFS 2004d). The USN Mine Warfare Center in Corpus Christi, Texas, may take, annually, up to five loggerheads and two l eatherbacks, hawksbills, greens, or Kemp’s ridleys, in combination, dur ing training activities in the western GOM. Formal

consultation on overall USCG or USN activitie s in the Gulf of Mexico has not been

conducted.

Dredging

The construction and maintenance of Federal na vigation channels has also been identified as a source of turtle mortality. Hopper dr edges, which are frequently used in ocean bar

channels and sometimes in harbor channels and offshore borrow areas, move relatively rapidly (compared to sea turtle swimming speed s) and can entrain and kill sea turtles, presumably as the drag arm of the moving dr edge overtakes the slower moving turtle. A

62regional opinion for the COE’s Gulf of Mexico hopper dredging operations was completed in November 2003 (NMFS 2003b as last revised on January 9, 2007). The opinion concluded “no jeopardy” for sea tu rtles and Gulf sturgeon. An ITS was provided, as well as reasonable and prudent measures specified to minimize impacts included the use of temporal dredging window s, intake and overflow screening, the use of sea turtle deflector dragheads, observer and reporting requirements, and sea turtle relocation trawling.

ESA Permits The ESA allows the issuance of permits to take ESA-listed species for the purposes of scientific research (s ection 10(a)(1)(a)). In addition, the ESA allows for the NMFS to enter into cooperative agreements with stat es developed under section 6 of the ESA, to assist in recovery actions of listed species. Prior to issuance of these authorizations, the proposal must be reviewed for compliance with section 7 of the ESA.

Sea turtles are the focus of research activities authorized by a section 10 permit under the ESA. There are currently 11 active scientific research permits directed toward sea turtles that are applicable to the action area of this biological opinion. Authorized activities range from photographing, weighing, and taggi ng sea turtles incidentally taken in fisheries, blood sampling, tissue sampling (biopsy), and performing laparoscopy on intentionally captured turtles. The number of authorized takes vari es widely depending on the research and species involved but ma y involve the taking of hundreds of turtles annually. Most takes authorized under these permits are expected to be non-lethal. Before any research permit is issued, the proposal must be reviewed under the permit regulations (i.e., must show a benefit to the species). In addition, since issuance of the permit is a federal activity, issuance of the permit by the NMFS must also be reviewed for compliance with section 7(a )(2) of the ESA to ensure that issuance of the permit does not result in jeopardy to the species.

6.3 State or Private Actions Vessel Traffic

Commercial traffic and recrea tional pursuits can have an adverse effect on marine mammals and sea turtles by direct physical imp acts from vessel strikes, or by interactions with boat propellers.

State Fisheries

Several coastal state fisheries are known to incidentally take listed species, but information on these fisheries is sparse (NM FS 2001a). Various fishing methods used in

these commercial and recreationa l fisheries, including trawling, pot fisheries, gillnets, and

vertical line are all known to incidentally take sea turtles, but information on these fisheries is sparse (NMFS 2001a). Although the past and current effects of state fisheries on listed species are currently not determin able, the NMFS believes that ongoing fishing activities in state water, may in part, be responsible for seasonally high levels of observed strandings of sea turtles on South Atlantic coastlines. Most state data are based on extremely low observer coverage or sea turtle s were not part of data collection; thus, these data provide insight into gear interactio ns that could occur but are not indicative of

63the magnitude of the overall problem. The 2001 HMS biological opinion (NMFS 2001b) has an excellent summary of turtles taken in state fisheries through out the action area.

To address data gaps, several state agencies have initiated observer programs to collect

information on interactions betw een listed species and certain gear types. Other states have closed nearshore waters to gear-type s known to have high encounter rates with listed species. Depending on the fishery in question, many state permit holders also hold federal permits; therefore, existing secti on 7 consultations on federal fisheries may address some of the state fishery impacts. NMFS is also actively participating in a cooperative effort with Atlant ic States Marine Fisheries Commission to standardize and/or implement programs to collect informa tion on level of effort and bycatch in state

fisheries.

Additional information on impact of take (i.e., associated mortality) is also needed for analysis of impacts to sea turtles from these fisheries. Certain gear types may have high levels of sea turtle takes, but very low rates of serious injury or mortality. For example, hook-and-line takes rarely are dead upon retr ieval of gear, but trawls and gillnets frequently result in immediate mortality. Leat herbacks seem to be susceptible to a more restricted list of fisheries, while hardshell tu rtles, particularly logge rheads, seem to appear

in data from almost all state fisheries. The HMS biological opini on also summarizes sea turtle interactions with flyne ts and various trawl techniques that occur within the action

area.

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida ha ve placed restrictions on gillnet fisheries

within state waters such that very little commercial gilln etting takes place in southeast

waters.

Observations of state recreational fisheries have shown that loggerhead, leatherback, and green sea turtles are known to bite baited hooks, and loggerheads fr equently ingest the hooks. Hooked turtles have been reported by the public fishing from boats, piers, and beach, banks, and jetties and from commercia l fishermen fishing for reef fish and for sharks with both single rigs and bottom longlines (NMFS 2001b). A detailed summary of the known impacts of hook-and-line incident al captures to loggerhead sea turtles can be found in the TEWG reports (1998, 2000).

Oil and Gas Activities State oil and gas exploration, production, and development are expected to result in similar effects to protected species as reported in the analysis of federal activities for oil and gas lease sale biological opinions with the MMS, including impacts associated with the explosive removal of offshore structures , seismic exploration, marine debris, oil spills, and vessel operation.

6.4 Other Potential Sources of Impacts in the Environmental Baseline A number of activities that may indirectly affe ct listed species in the action area of this

consultation include ocean dum ping and disposal, aquacultur e, and anthropogenic marine debris. The impacts from these activities are difficult to measure. Where possible,

64conservation actions are being implemented to monitor or study impacts from these sources. Close coordination is occurring th rough the section 7 pr ocess on both dredging and disposal sites to develop monitoring progra ms and ensure that vessel operators do not contribute to vessel-related impacts.

Marine Pollution Sources of pollutants in the GOM coastal regions include atmospheric loading of pollutants such as PCBs, stormwater runoff from coastal towns, cities and villages, runoff into rivers emptying into the bays, groundwater and other discharges , and river input and runoff. Nutrient loading from land-based s ources such as coastal community discharges is known to stimulate plankton blooms in clos ed or semi-closed estuarine systems. The effects on larger embayments are unknown. Although pathological e ffects of oil spills have been documented in laboratory studies of marine mammals and sea turtles (Vargo et al. 1986), the impacts of many other anthropogenic toxins ha ve not been investigated.

Acoustic Impacts NMFS has also been working to establish criteria to predict varying levels of responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic noise, based upon hearing injury and behavioral responses of marine mammals. Responses to noise exposure may in clude lethal or nonlethal injury, temporary hearing impairment , behavioral harassment and stress, or no apparent response. Ambient noise in the GOM is approximately 40 dB re 1 μ Pa above estimated baseline levels prior to industrial ization, and it is expected to increase.

Contributions to ambient noise levels include vessels; geophysical exploration; and the construction, operational, and decommissioning of offshore structures. It is expected that the policy on managing anthropogenic sound in the oceans will provide guidance for programs such as incidental harassment pe rmits under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and permits for research i nvolving sound-producing activities. NOAA is working cooperatively with the ship-building industry to find technologically-based solutions to reduce the amount of noise produced by comme rcial vessels. Through ESA consultation with NMFS, MMS has implemented GOM-wide measures to reduce the risk of harassment to sperm whales from noise produced by geological and geophysical surveying activities and the explosive removal of offshore structures.

Hypoxia A large area of the Louisiana continental shel f with seasonally-deplet ed oxygen levels (< 2mg/l) is caused by eutrophication from both po int and non-point sources. Most aquatic species cannot survive at such low oxygen le vels and these areas are known as “dead zones.” The oxygen depletion, referred to as hypoxia, begins in late spring, reaches a maximum in mid-summer, and disappears in the fall. After the Mississippi River flood of 1993, the spatial extent of this zone more than doubled in size, to over 18,000 km 2 , and has remained about that size each year through mid-summer of 1997. The hypoxic zone has impacts on the animals found there, includi ng sea turtles, and the ecosystem-level impacts continue to be investigated.

65Natural Seeps Naturally occurring hydrocarbon seepage has long been identified as a significant source of hydrocarbons. Tarballs coming from natura l seeps were used by early indigenous man living along the GOM coast to construct hunting t ools. Given that the GOM is a prolific petroleum-producing province, its seafloor is pocketed with areas from which oil and gas seep. Accurately calculating the volume of naturally seeping oil is problematic. Often the volume measured floating on the surface of th e water or beached has been used as the best indicator of the volume originally seeped.

6.5 Conservation and Recovery Actions Shaping the Environmental Baseline NMFS has implemented a series of regulations aimed at reducing potential for incidental mortality of sea turtles in commercial fisherie s. In particular, NM FS has required the use of TEDs in southeast U.S. shrimp trawls si nce 1989 and in summer fl ounder trawls in the mid-Atlantic area (south of Cape Charles, Vi rginia) since 1992. It has been estimated that TEDs exclude 97 percent of the sea turtle s caught in such trawls. These regulations have been refined over the y ears to ensure that TED effectiveness is maximized through proper placement and installation, configura tion (e.g., width of bar spacing), floatation, and more widespread use. Analyses by E pperly and Teas (2002) indicated that the minimum requirements for the escape opening dimensions in TEDs in use at that time were too small, and that as many as 47 percent of the loggerheads stranding annually along the Atlantic Seaboard and GOM were t oo large to fit through existing openings. On February 21, 2003, NMFS published a final rule to require larger escape openings in TEDs used in the Southeast shrimp trawl fishery (68 FR 8456, February 21, 2003). Based upon the analyses in Eppe rly et al. (2002), leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles will greatly benefit from the new regulations, with expected reductions of 97 percent and 94 percent, respectively, in mortality from shrimp trawling. Several states have regulations requiring the use of TEDs in state-regulated trawl fisheries, and the federal regulations also apply in state waters.

NMFS has also been active in public outreach efforts to educate fishermen regarding sea turtle handling and resuscitati on techniques. As well as ma king this information widely available to all fishermen, NMFS recently conducted a number of workshops with Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fishermen to discuss bycatch issues including protected species, and to educate them regarding handli ng and release guidelines. NMFS intends to continue these outreach efforts and hopes to reach all fishermen pa rticipating in the Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fi shery over the next one to two years. There is also an extensive network of STSSN participants along the Atlantic and GOM coasts who not only collect data on dead sea turt les, but also rescue and reha bilitate any live stranded sea

turtles.

Loggerheads, leatherbacks, greens, and Kemp’s ridleys are known to bite a baited hook, frequently ingesting the hook. Hooked turtles have been reported by the public fishing from boats, piers, beaches, banks, and jetties. Necropsies have reveal ed hooks internally,

which often were the cause of death. NM FS currently is exploring adding questions

about encounters with sea turtles to inte rcept interviews of recreational fishermen conducted by the Texas Parks and Wildlife De partment under the auspices of the Marine

66Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey s conducted throughout the GOM and along the Atlantic Coast as well as adding such inform ation to the MRFSS database. NMFS is also considering questioning recreational fish ermen aboard headboats throughout the southeast U.S. Atlantic and the GOM to qua ntify their encounters with sea turtles (TEWG 2000). Detailed summaries of the im pact of hook-and-line incidental captures on loggerhead sea turtles can be found in the TEWG reports (1998, 2000).

The Recovery Plans for loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are in the process of being updated. Recovery teams comprised of sea turtle experts have been convened and are currently working towards revising thes e plans based upon the latest and best

available information.

7 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

Regulations implementing section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires biological opinions to

evaluate the direct and indire ct effects of federal actions to determine if it would be reasonable to expect them to appreciably re duce listed species' lik elihood of surviving and recovering in the wild by reducing their reproduction, numbers, or distribution (16 U.S.C. '1536; 50 CFR 402.02). Section 7 of th e ESA also requires biological opinions to determine if federal actions would destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. '1536).

In this section NMFS analyzes the adverse e ffects expected to occu r as a result of the proposed five-year lease sale plan for the WPA and CPA. MMS actions will allow oil and gas operations to take place in association with the lease sales, with effects to the

near-shore and offshore environments. A desc ription of activities is provided in the Description of the Proposed Action section, a nd those effects that were considered, but determined to be insignificant or discountable ap pear in sections 3 and 4 of this biological opinion. The potential for Gulf sturgeon critic al habitat to be adversely affected was

considered in section 4.1.

Approach to the Assessment The ESA requires biological opinions to incl ude details of how the agency action affects listed species or their critical habitat along with the informa tion that forms the basis of the biological opinion (16 U.S.C. 1536). Regul ations that implemen t Section 7 of the ESA require biological opinions to include an evaluation of whether the action would be reasonably expected to appreciably reduce th e likelihood of survival and recovery of listed species in the wild by reducing thei r reproduction, numbers, or distribution or would be reasonably expected to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat (50 CFR 402.02). We approach the analysis by identifyi ng the probable direct and indirect effects

of an action on the environment of the action area. In the se cond step, we assess the risk to individual animals (of listed species) from exposure to such changes in the environment, taking into consideration any pot ential responses of the animals, and then conduct an analysis to determine if any exp ected changes result in jeopardy to those populations of listed species.

677.1 Vessel Strikes Sea turtles may be accidentally injured or ki lled by collisions with vessels over the 40- year life of operations resulting from the proposed action. As stated above, increased ship traffic could increase the probability of collis ions between ships and sea turtles. Although there have been thousands of vessel trips that have been made in support of offshore operations during the past 40 years of OCS oil and gas operations, there have been no reports of OCS-related vessels having struck sea turtles. However, collisions with small and/or submerging turtles may go undetected, even with an observer onboard, and stranding records frequen tly document evidence of inte ractions such as cracked carapaces, missing limbs, and prope ller cuts or scars. Sea tu rtles could, on occasion, be killed or injured by collisions with oil and gas service vessels.

In the wild, most adult sea turtles spend at least 3-6 % of their time at the surface for respiration. Despite the brevit y of their respiratory phases, sea turtles sometimes spend

as much as 26 % of their time at the su rface, engaged in surface basking, feeding, orientation, and mating (Lutcavage et al. 1997). Sea turtles located in shallower waters have shorter surface intervals, whereas tur tles occurring in deeper waters have longer

surface intervals. Data show that vessel traffi c is one cause of sea turtle mortality in the GOM (Lutcavage et al. 1997). Stranding data for the U.S. GOM and Atlantic coasts show that vessel-related injuri es were noted in 13 % of st randed turtles examined during 1993 (Teas 1994), but this figure includes those that may have been struck by boats postmortem. In Florida, where there are a high number of recreational vessels, the frequency of boat injuries between 1991 and 1993 was 18% of strandings (Lutcav age et al. 1997).

Data indicate that live- and dead-stranded s ea turtles showing signs of vessel-related injuries continue in a high percentage of stranded sea turtles in coastal regions of the

southeastern United States.

Based on active leases as of April 2006, 55 percen t of those leases occur in water depths greater than 200 m (3,606 occur on water de pths from 0-200 m; 4,501 occur in water depth greater than 200 m). Due to the uncertain ties in the factors a ffecting interactions between vessels and sea turtles, the following assumptions have been made to calculate

the encounter rates in Table 5:

• sea turtle densities in Table 5;

• an average offshore supply vessel measuring 70 m x 16 m (0.0700 km x 0.0160 km);

• 100 percent of the maximum number of annual vessel trips will occur in water depths < 200 m (238,000 trips)

• 55 percent of the maximum number of a nnual vessel trips will occur in water depths ≥ 200 m (130,900 trips);

• a random distribution of ve ssels and sea turtles;

• turtles are stationary at the surface; and

• a vessel may affect a sea turtle once per round trip.

Based on the above assumptions, the dimensions of a vessel is a rectangular-shaped space occupying a potential impact area of 0.0011 km 2 for a single vessel, a maximum

68harassment area of 262 km 2 resulting from a total of 238,000 vessel trips annually in water depths <200 m, and an area of 144 km 2 resulting from 130,900 vessel trips annually in water depths ≥ 200 m. Based on sea turtle dens ities in the GOM, the greatest

estimated annual encounter rates between vesse ls and sea turtles would be expected in water depths <200 m (Table 5). This estimat e assumes a vessel is stationary; however, since vessels are underway between destin ations, the probability for a randomly positioned, stationary sea turtle to be encounter ed may be expected to increase as a vessel moves through the water. The operating sp eeds and actual distances traveled by the annual number of vessel transits can be highl y variable, and is therefore considered qualitatively in this analysis.

Table 5. Sea turtle densities in the GOM and estimates of encounters between vessels

and sea turtles.

Species Density (individuals km -2 ) Annual

Encounters Encounters Over

40 Years

<200 m a

leatherback 0.0026 0.6812 27.25

green 0.0142 3.7204 148.82
Kemp = s ridley 0.0047 1.2314 49.26 loggerhead 0.0443 11.6066 464.26

hawksbill 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

>200 m b

leatherback 0.0024 0.3456 13.82

green c 0.0005 0.0720 2.88

Kemp = s ridley c 0.0005 0.0720 2.88

loggerhead 0.0020 0.2880 11.52

a Density estimates are upper confidence limits of greates t reported density in water depths <200 m of the western GOM reported in Epperly et al. 2002.

b Density estimates from seasonal averag es reported in Davis et al. 2000b.

c Unidentified chelonids from Davis et al. 2000b are assumed to be Kemp’s ridleys or greens sea turtles. Hawksbills are not expected to occur in deep wate r habitats are excluded from the >200 m analysis.

Table 5 provides an estimate of potential encounter rates with sea turtles based on the probability that one sea turtle will occupy th e same space as a vessel during each vessel trip. Although sea turtles are not randomly di stributed and may be expected to occur in greater densities in some regions than others , we consider the assumptions reasonable to estimate the potential risk of vessels strikes with sea turtle s on an annual basis. The distribution of sea turtles may be affected by a variety of biotic and abiotic factors, including season, water temperature, prey di stribution, and life hist ory stage. These factors may significantly affect where and wh en sea turtles may be encountered in the GOM. In reality, both sea turtles and vessels may have the opportunity to avoid one another and encounter rates may be highly variable. When underw ay vessels do come upon sea turtles, sea turtles may respond by sw imming away at the surface or diving and vessels may take prudent actions to avoid stri king an animal. Avoidance behavior by sea

69turtles is advantageous to avoid being struc k, and avoidance behavior is expected to be insignificant on both the individual and the population; however, a few individuals would be expected to be at risk of injury or mortality over the lifetime of the action (Table 5).

To reduce the risk of potential injury and mo rtality resulting from vessel collisions with sea turtles, MMS will implement NMFS’ vessel strike avoidance measures for protected species, as implemented in MMS NTL 2007- G04. With implementation of these measures, by maintaining a lookout for sea tu rtles and taking prudent actions to avoid collisions with them, NMFS believes that the likelihood of collisions between vessels and sea turtles will be reduced. However, due to nighttime operation of vessels and the small size of sea turtles, some individuals may go unobserved and may be accidentally struck by an underway vessel.

The following take estimates are based on the a ssumptions in the risk analysis conducted, and the following considerations. Although vess el operators are required to maintain a watch for and avoid sea turtles, NMFS estimat es sightings will be reduced by 55 percent due to darkness, and reduced an additional 20 percent due to poor sea state and visibility, and other factors such as operator fatigue re sulting in sea turtle s going unobserved. The magnitude of the impact on vessel-struck s ea turtles may range from minor annoyance to injury, or death, which is dependent on the sp eed of the vessel, depth of the turtle, and angle of impact. Due to the variable operational speeds and conditions under which animals may be struck, we estimate that 1/3 of vessels striking sea turtles will result in mortality. Based on the greatest encounter rate for each species calculated in Table 5, a

detection and collision avoidan ce rate of 25%, and estimate that 1/3 of all strikes will be

lethal the incidental take of each sea turtle species by vesse l strike over 40-years of the proposed lease sales is calculate as follows:

Number at

Risk of Strike Species Encounters Over

40 Years Non-Lethal

Take Lethal Take

leatherback 41 31 21 10

green 152 114 76 38

Kemp = s ridley 52 39 26 13
loggerhead 476 357 238 119

hawksbill 3 2 1 1

Numbers with decimal places >0.50 were roun ded to the next nearest whole number.

7.2 Geological and Geophysical Surveys NMFS has completed two biological opinions on seismic surveys occurring in the WPA and CPA of the GOM (NMFS 2002b and 2002c) and most recently for lease sales occurring in the Eastern Planning Area (NM FS 2003c) and are incorporated by reference in the following analysis. In these biological opinions we anticipated incidental takes of sperm whales, but an incidental take statem ent was not included for sperm whales since a take authorization has not yet been issued under Section 101(a) (5 ) of the MMPA. On December 26, 2002, the MMS submitted a reque st for 5-year regulations under the MMPA for the taking, by harassment, of sp erm whales incidental to oil and gas

70industry’s seismic surveys to discover oil and gas deposits offshore in the GOM. NMFS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking re garding the small take authorization on March 3, 2003 (68 FR 9991). Following issuance of such regulations under the MMPA, NMFS intends to estimate th e number of potent ial takes of sperm whales and authorize any take that may be necessary. Seismic surveys associated with the proposed lease sales occur in deep, offshore waters of the OCS that is well outside the range of Gulf sturgeon; theref ore, the effects of seismic su rveys on this species are not

considered further.

7.2.1 Effects of Seismic Surveys on Sperm Whales

The received sound level result ing in behavioral changes (a nd harassment) has not been measured in sperm whales, but do not expect th e received level to be lower than that of baleen whales. Unlike baleen whales, sperm whales are not likely to be low-frequency specialists, but are believed to be most se nsitive in the mid-frequency hearing range (Madsen et al. 2002). Low frequency sounds travel further distances than higher frequency sounds, resulting in a greater potent ial of disturbance for baleen whales.

Previous biological opinions, he rein incorporated by refere nce, have considered the potential for sperm whales to experience hearing loss, disturbance, habituation, sensitization, and masking with exposure to seismic surveys. There is no new

information available from the date of thos e biological opinions that would alter the conclusions of those biological opinions a nd summarized below. The proposed action would result in multiple seismic surveys in the lease sale areas, which overlap with known habitat and presence of sperm whales. We believe that permanent hearing loss (permanent threshold shift or PTS) is un likely to occur given that seismic survey operators would continue to implement the seismic minimization measures according to the MMS Notice to Lessees. Masking also would be unlikely to occur due to the characteristics of the airgun pulses. The pr imary concerns are with the potential for temporary hearing loss, importa nt sperm whale behaviors to be disrupted, cow-calf pair disturbance, habituation to seismic pulses, and possible effects to thei r prey. Given that a seismic survey could be conducted over a br oad area for weeks or months, a social group that remains in a particular location would be repeatedly exposed to airgun pulses at a variety of received levels. This exposure c ould result in repeated disruptions to a group that is caring for a calf or some reduction in feeding due to prey relocations or the disruption of a sperm whale’s hunt. Exposed sperm whales may also be subject to some

level of stress that is not evident or obse rvable through any changes in behavior. Though

the available information indicates that some avoidance or disturbance from airgun noise is possible, the reported obser vations do not indicate that any immediate physical injury is occurring. Furthermore, seismic survey s have been conducted in the proposed lease sale area and other parts of the northern GOM, yet sperm whales continue to be present there and their population appear s to be stable. If behavior al disruptions do occur during seismic surveys, we expect that the disr uption would be limited to the duration of exposure to the noise, which may be highly variable.

The nutritional status of female s is linked to annual calf production in whales and other

animals. A reduction in heari ng ability, prey availability, or hunting success could likely

71affect milk production and nutri tional status of lactating females, and depending on the level of disruption, calf production could possibly be reduced in any given year depending on the number and duration of seismi c surveys. This further highlights the continued importance of implemen tation of MMS’s NTL No. 2007-G02.

Summary of Effects on Sperm Whales In summary, sperm whales are expected to be harassed through di sruption of important biological behaviors as a result of the use of airguns in seismic surveys associated with the proposed action and these behavioral res ponses are likely to re sult in a bi ological effect which may adversely affect sp erm whales. However, the continued implementation of the impact minimization measures from seismic surveys in MMS’s NTL (APPENDIX A) is expected to reduce this harassment and to prevent this harassment from resulting in actual loss of individual sperm whales.

7.3 Oil spills Offshore oil spills associated with a proposed action can result from platform accidents, pipeline breaks, or navigation a ccidents. Coastal oil spills ca n result from storage, barge, or pipeline accidents. The most likely locati ons of coastal spills are at pipeline terminals and other shore bases, oil spills have been described in the GOM (Bedinger et. al 1982, Van Vleet and Pauly 1987, Van Vl eet et al. 1984). Spills from support vessels could occur from navigation accidents and will be largely confined in navigation channels and canals. Slicks may quickly spread through th e channel by tidal, wind, and traffic (vessel) currents. The severity of the effects of an oil spill on listed specie s would be related to the location of the spill, the type of oil, the level of contact with the oil that the whales, turtles or fish have, and the life stage of the animal encountering the oil.

The following analysis first considers the potenti al effects to sea turtles, Gulf sturgeon, and sperm whales from accidental oil spill s, and then considers MMS’ oil spill risk analysis (OSRA). Using the results of th e OSRA, the probable lik elihood of oil spills occurring in each species hab itat is determined. Oil spi ll trajectory simulations are generated by MMS to be used to estimate spill risk. The MMS uses a numerical computer model that simulates the likely tr ajectory of a surface slick, represented as a point launched from locations projected onto a gridded area. The point’s trajectory simulates a spill’s movement on the surface of water by using modeled ocean current and wind fields. The model uses temporally a nd spatially varying, numerically computed ocean currents and winds. Finally, the number of exposures to each species is estimated, and the potential for take resulting from those exposures is evaluated.

7.3.1 Effects on Sea Turtles Spilled oil could affect any life history stage or age class of sea turtles (Vargo et. al 1986). Offshore and coastal spills could affect any species or age class of sea turtle coming into contact with a slick. Direct cont act would continue to occur for as long as the slick persists, but physiol ogical effects could continue for long periods once the slick diminishes. If a sea turtle were not directly exposed to a slick, hydrocarbons continue to persist in the sea for decades or longer. Ta rballs are a byproduct of accidentally spilled oil, normal and accepted ship operations (e.g., bilge tank flushing), illegal discharges

72from tank washings, and natural oil seeps on th e seafloor. They are found in every ocean and on every beach; features such as convergence zones and Langmuir cells can aggregate even widely dispersed tarballs in to an area where sea turtles concentrate. USFWS biologists from Texas recently comm ented to MMS that they are still finding tarballs, probably from the Ixtoc oil spill in Mexico that occurred decades ago, washing up on Padre Island National Seashore. Tarballs ingested by any age class of sea turtle are likely to have a variety of effects, incl uding starvation from gut blockage, decreased absorption efficiency, absorption of toxins, eff ects of general intestin al blockage (such as

local necrosis or ulcerati on), interference with fat metabolism, and buoyancy problems caused by the buildup of fermentation gases (flo ating prevents turtles from feeding and increases their vulnerability to predators and boats), among others.

Effects of Oil on Sea Turtle Nesting Spilled oil reaching a sea turtle nesting beach could have affects on nesting sea turtles and egg development. An oiled beach could a ffect nest site selec tion or result in no nesting at all (e.g., false crawls). A nesting sea turtle crawling up a beach could result in external oiling of the skin and carapace. Upon successful nesting, some indirect effects of beach oiling could result in changed sex ra tios on a nesting beach. Hays et al. (2001)

determined that subtle differences in sa nd color or albedo can significantly affect underlying temperatures. Because sex determina tion in turtles is temperature-dependent, shifts in albedo could potentially change hatc hling sex ratios. Even light surface oiling that does not penetrate directly to the eggs could therefore affect gender distribution in a population. To simulate heavier beach o iling, Fritts and McGehee (1982) conducted laboratory studies by exposing eggs to fresh oil during the last half to last quarter of the incubation period. Oil-exposed eggs showed a significant lower rate of egg survival, than eggs that were not exposed to oil. Weathered oil appeared to lose it s toxic effect on eggs and it was concluded that oil spilled even a few weeks prior to the nesting season would have little effect on successful egg development.

Effects of Oil on Hatchlings Upon hatching and successfully reaching the water, hatchlings are subject to the same types of oil spill exposure hazards as adults. Hatchlings that contact oil residues while crossing a beach can exhibit a ra nge of effects, from acute toxicity to impaired movement and normal bodily functions. However, differen ces in size and behavior increase the risk of oils spills on hatchlings. Most reports of oiled hatchl ings originate from convergence zones, ocean areas where currents meet to form collection points for material at or near the surface of the water. These zones aggregat e oil slicks as well as smaller, weaker sea turtles. Because hatchlings spend a greater proportion of their time at the surface than adults, their risk of exposure to fl oating oil slicks w ould be increased.

In convergence zones off the east coast of Flor ida, tar was found in the mouths, esophagi, or stomachs of 65 out of 103 post-hatchling loggerheads (Loehefener et al. 1989). In another study (Witherington 1994), 34 percent of post-hatchlings at “weed lines” off the

Florida coast had tar in their mouths or es ophagi, and over half had tar caked in their jaws. Lutz (1989) reported that hatchlings have been found apparently starved to death, their beaks and esophagi blocked with tarballs . Hatchlings sticky with oil residue may

73have a more difficult time crawling and swim ming, rendering them more vulnerable to predation.

Effects of Oil on Sea Turtle Juveniles and Adults Studies of oil effects on loggerheads in a controlled setting (L utcavage et al. 1995) suggest that sea turtles show no avoidance beha vior when they encounter an oil slick and any sea turtle in an affected area would be expected to be exposed. Sea turtles’ diving behaviors also puts them at risk. Sea turtles rapidly inhale a large volume of air before diving and continually resurface over time that may result in repeated exposure to volatile vapors and oiling.

Lutcavage et al. (1995) studies provided qualitative evidence that oil exposure disrupted lachrymal gland (salt gland) function, in which the glands phy siologically did not function for several days. Experiments on physiological and clinicopathological effects of oil on loggerhead sea turtles approximat ely 15 to 18 months old showed that the turtles’ major physiological systems are a dversely affected by both chronic and acute exposures (96-hour exposure to a 0.05-cm layer of South L ouisiana crude oil versus 0.5 cm for 48 hours). The skin of exposed turtles, particularly the soft pliable areas of the neck and flippers, sloughed off in layers fo r up to 2 weeks and recovery taking up to 3

weeks. Oil was also detected in the nares, eyes, upper es ophagus, and feces, indicating that turtles were ingesting oil, though appa rently not enough to cause intestinal bleeding

and anemia. Internal effects of oil exposure also include significant ch anges in blood and blood chemistry. Hematocrits (red blood cell volume) decreased nearly 50 percent in

oiled turtles and did not incr ease again during the recovery period. An immune response indicated by significant increas es in white blood cells lasted more than a week in sea turtles exposed to oil.

Turtles also indiscriminately eat anything that registers as being an appropriate size for food, including tarballs. Oil ingested by a turtle does not pass rapidly through its digestive tract. It may be retained for seve ral days, increasing internal contact and the likelihood that toxic compounds will be absorb ed. The risk of gut impaction also

increases for turtles that have ingested oil.

Risk of Oil Spills in Sea Turtle Habitat To their widespread distribution throughout the GOM, and life history stages on both beach and marine environments, sea turtles ha ve a high potential to be affected by an oil spill resulting from the proposed lease sales. Sea turtle habitat in the GOM includes inshore, shelf, and oceanic waters, as well as numerous beaches in the region. Based on the OSRA, many, frequent, small spills; few, infrequent, moderate-sized spills; and a single, unlikely, large spill have been estimated.

In nearshore waters of the WPA, spill estimate s indicate that spills <42 U.S. gallons (gal) (42 U.S. gallons = 1 bbl) will introduce 546-1,218 gal of oil into coastal waters over the 40-year life of the proposed lease sales. Spills >42 ga l and <42,000 gal of oil are expected to introduce 6,426-12,852 gal of oil in coastal waters of the WPA. A single

74spill >42,000 gal of oil may occur and the to tal volume of spilled oil introduced into coastal waters of the WPA ranges from 6,972-140,070 gal.

In nearshore waters of the CPA, spill estimat es indicate that between 42 and 92 spills of <42 gal of oil will be introduced into co astal waters. An additional 12,852-32,004 gal of oil are estimated to be spilled into coasta l waters of the CPA from spills of >42 to <42,000 gal. A total of 14,616-161,868 gal of spi lled oil is estimated for coastal waters

of the CPA.

In offshore waters of the WPA, estimates from spill data indicate many frequent small spills (<42 gal); few, infrequent, moderately -sized spills (>42 gal and <42,000 gal); and/ or rare large spills as a result of the pr oposed actions. An estimated 2,394-4,158 gal of

oil will be introduced in offshore waters fr om small spills (<42 gal). An additional 15,582-52,290 gal of oil will be spilled in quantities of a >42 to <42,000 gal spill event. A single, large spill (>42,000 gal) is estim ated to introduce appr oximately 193,200 gal of oil. A single, but unlikely, spill may occur that introduces as much as 630,000 gal of oil. The total volume of oil spilled in offshore wate rs as a result of the proposed actions in the WPA is estimated at 15,582-875,490 gal of oil sp read over the 40-year life span of the proposed actions. In offshore waters of the CPA, small spills (<42 gal) are projected to introduce 7,644-12,768 gal of oil. Moderate-s ized spills (>42 a nd <42,000 gal), though occurring less frequently than smaller spills, will introduce an estimated 37,128-86,982 gal of oil. One or two large spills (>4 2,000 gal) are assumed to introduce approximately 193,200-386,400 gal of oil as a result of proposed actions in the CPA. In the rare event that a spill exceeding 420,000 gal should occur, it is estimated that approximately 630,000 gal of oil will be spilled over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed leases in the

CPA.

7.3.2 Effects of Oil on Sperm Whales A large accidental spill may impact sperm whales in the GOM. Because the of the matriarchal social structure of sperm whal es, an accidental oil spill affecting sperm whales could potentially affect the whole group in the area, including adult females, calves, and juveniles of either sex. Sperm wh ales are deep divers and generally forage over large areas so that the magnitude of oil exposure would depend, in part, on the location of the spill, the com position of the spilled material, and the movement and fate of the spilled hydrocarbons/was tes in the offshore environment. Spilled hydrocarbons could affect sperm whales through various pathways including surface contact, oil inhalation, and oil ingestion. Dire ct contact with oil can result in irritation and damage to skin and soft tissues of cetaceans. Hydr ocarbons absorbed in the blood stream may

accumulate in the brain and liver and result in neurological disorders. Sperm whales in the GOM could be exposed to residuals of oils spilled as a result of proposed actions over the life of the lease resulting fr om the proposed lease sales.

Risk of Oil Spills in Sperm Whale Habitat Blowouts, oil spills, and spill -response activities have the po tential to adversely affect sperm whales in the offshore environment. There are 1-2 blowouts projected to occur from a proposed lease sale in the WPA and 2-3 blowouts projected from a proposed lease

75sale in the CPA. It is expected that s licks from spills <42,000 gal will persist a few minutes (<42 gal), a few hours (<420 gal), or a few days (420-42,000 gal) on the open ocean. Large spills, particular ly those continuing to flow fresh hydrocarbons into oceanic

and/or outer shelf waters for extended periods (days, weeks, months), pose an increased likelihood of impacting cetacean populations inhabiting thes e waters. Oil-spill data

derived from historical tr ends estimate that a total volume of 237,972-1,116,150 gal of oil

will be introduced into federal offshore wate rs over 40 years as a result of the proposed lease sales in the CPA. Small spills (< 42 gal) are projected to introduce 7,644-12,768 gal of oil. Moderate-sized spills (>42 and <42,000 gal), though occurring less frequently than smaller spills, will introduce an es timated 37,128-86,982 gal of oil. One or two large spills (>42,000 gal) are assumed to introduce approximately 193,200-386,400 gal of oil as a result of proposed actions in the CP A. In the rare event that a spill exceeding 420,000 gal should occur, it is estimated that approximately 630,000 gal of oil will be spilled. Spilled oil would rapidly spread out , evaporate, and weather, quickly becoming dispersed into the water column. Potential effects include physical injury and irritation, respiratory stress from inhala tion of toxic fumes, food reduc tion or contamination, direct ingestion of oil and/or tar, and temporar y displacement from preferred habitats.

7.3.3 Effects of Oil on Gulf Sturgeon The risk of exposure of Gulf sturgeon to such a spill would be dependent upon the species abundance in the area affected by a spil l, as well as the size and persistence of the slick. Oil spill probability models were run for Gulf sturgeon critical habitat and for a swath from the mouth of the Mississippi River to Tampa Bay for known Gulf sturgeon locations. The Gulf sturgeon is an anadrom ous fish; adults spawn in freshwater then migrate to feed and grow in estuarine/marine habitats. After spawning in the upper river reaches, both adult and subadult Gulf sturgeon migrate to the estuaries, bays, and the

GOM and return to the coastal rivers in ear ly spring (i.e., March through May) when river water temperatures range from 16 ° C to 23 ° C (Huff 1975, Carr 1983, Wooley and Crateau 1985, Odenkirk 1989, Clugston et al. 1995, Foster and Clugston 1997, Fox and Hightower 1998, Sulak and Clugston 1999, Fox et al. 2000). Surveys have located adult Gulf sturgeon in rivers predominantly in the summer months (May-August) with adults rare or absent in the rivers during fall and winter months when they migrate seaward into the adjacent estuarine and mari ne habitats (Craft et al . 2001, Berg 2004). Based on the life history of this species, s ubadult and adult would be most vulnerable to an estuarine or marine oil spill, and would only be vulnerabl e during winter months (between September 1 through April 30) when this species is fora ging in estuarine and marine habitats.

Risk of Oil Spills in Gulf Sturgeon Habitat The area analyzed for oil spill probability is the area in which Gulf sturgeon are known to occur, from the Mississippi River to Char lotte Harbor in western Florida. This geographic range of Gulf stur geon is larger than the de signated critical habitat.

The inclusion of the eastern Louisiana por tion differs from the oil spill analysis performed for critical habitat and results in di fferent oil spill contac t probabilities. Gulf sturgeon designated critical habitat does not include the Mississippi River delta (southeastern-most portion of Louisiana to the ri ver mouth); resulting in greater risk of an

76oil spill affecting Gulf sturge on than their critical habitat. Based on the OSRA conducted for Gulf sturgeon, the area of the Mississippi River delta has the highest risk of being affected by an oil spill. Th ere is a 6 to 9 percent chance that a spill > 42,000 gal would occur as a result of a proposed action in the CPA and reach coastal waters of the delta region within 10 days.

7.3.4 Estimation of Exposure and Take from Oil Spills Oil spills are rare events, but they have the pot ential to be devastating to the listed species in the area affected when they occur. The tim e, location, and size of an oil spill, and oil spill response activities may determine the potential impacts to listed species. Immediately upon being spilled, oil begins to weather, including the evaporation of volatile hydrocarbons, dissolution of soluble components, dispersion into the water column, emulsification and spread ing at the water’s surface.

The relative risk of exposure to smaller and la rger sized slicks is very much dependent on the size of the slick, how long it lasts, and where and when it occurs. Many of the variables are highly unpredictable; however, th e majority of spills (75.1 percent) and the majority of spills by volume (83.8 percent) occur within 3 nmi of shore. Such spills place species inhabiting nearshore envi ronments, or occurring in greater densities, are at greater risk than offshore species.

Table 6. Mean number of spills expected over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed lease sales (data on spill size, spill area, an d number of spills provided by MMS).

Median Spill Size (gal) Spill Area at

24 hours

(km 2 ) a Maximum Number of Spills

in WPA and CPA Days Individual

Slick Area

Persists b Total Spill Area (km 2 )

Over 40 Yrs

3 0.0000124 5,757 2 0.1427736

126 0.0005261 129 2 0.1357338

840 0.0040470 28 3 0.2266320 3,780 0.0809400 11 4 3.5613600 26,880 0.1133000 2 4 0.9064000 193,200 0.8094000 3 5 12.141000

Total 1.0082255 5,933 27 17.1138994

a The spill area is based on the projected maximum surf ace area of the slick. The slick will become thinner and smaller over time, and the actual number of days a slick will persist will vary depending on weathering

and other factors.

b Estimate based volume of spilled oil and maximum spill area. Actual persistence of slicks may occur for longer periods, depending on volume, and is accoun ted for by applying the maximum slick area over a period of days.

Many small spills are expected to be common from the proposed action (Table 6). MMS estimates slicks from spills <42,000 gal will persist for a few minutes and would have

little chance of direct ly contacting a listed species unless individuals were in the immediate area at the time of the spill. The amount of oil spilled from many small sources is potentially greater than that of a few larger-sized spills. However, it is not simply infrequent or episodic spills that th reaten listed species, but also the continuous

77low-level exposure to oil in the form of ta rballs, small slicks, or elevated background concentrations also challenge animals faci ng other natural and anthropogenic stresses. Chronic exposure may not be lethal by itself, but it may impair an animal’s overall fitness

so that it is less able to withstand other stressors.

Larger spills greater than 420 gal would persist for days to over a week depending on the size and weathering of the slick. Although larg er spills are expected to occur much less frequently (Table 6), these larger spills ha ve the greatest potentia l to adversely affect listed species, and may result in more severe affects. MMS expects that approximately one major oil spill could occur over the 40 years of the proposed action.

Sea Turtles Spills originating in or migrating through co astal waters of Texas or Louisiana may impact any of the five sea turtle species inhabiting the GOM. Spills occurring in offshore waters would be expected to have less a chan ce of affecting sea turtles due to their lower densities in deep water; however, leatherbac k sea turtles may be expected to have a greater risk of adverse effects in offshore environments than nearshore environments. Takes from oil spills may be lethal or non- lethal ranging from a wi de array of effects including changes in biologically important beha viors to mortality. It has been estimated that approximately 1 percent of annual sea tu rtle strandings are associated with oil. Higher percentages are attributed to oil in South Florida (3 percent) and Texas (3 to 6 percent) (Lutcavage et al. 1997) . Oil removed from stranded sea turtles in Florida and Texas has been identified primarily as tanke r discharges, not the result of accidental spills.

Based on projected spill estimates, there is a small risk that an individual sea turtle will encounter a single small oil slick that does notpersist long in the environment. Longterm exposure to contaminants from many small oil spills may play a cumulative role, but these potential effects are mos tly unknown at this time. Small spills are expected to be much more numerous than large spills, but the fewer, larger s licks have a greater potential for adverse affects due to the increas ed chance that sea turtles will be exposed to large slicks over short periods due to its larger size and greater persistence in the

environment than smaller slicks.

Because oil spills are un predictable, we look to a catastroph ic oil spill, th e Ixtoc I oil spill in 1979, to estimate impacts. During this sp ill, prevailing northe rly currents in the western Gulf of Mexico carried spilled o il toward the United States. A 60-mile by 70- mile patch of sheen containing a 300 ft by 500 ft patch of heavy crude moved toward the Texas coast. The heavy crude impacts a re latively small area and contributes to the sheen, tarballs, and other residuals through weathering. On August 6, 1979, tarballs from the spill impacted a 17 mile stretch of Texa s beach. With new technologically advances and oil spill prevention and res ponse plans, a major oil spill in the GOM would not likely be as large as Ixtoc I (Miner als Management Service 2006). In the following analysis we use one-half estimates of the approximate maximum spill area from Ixtoc I to estimate potential impacts from a major oil spill occurr ing as a result of the proposed action. It

should be noted that this estim ate likely applies to all oil and gas operations in the GOM

78over a 40-year period, but the risk of any one action (i.e., a lease sale) must be assumed to be equal. Table 7 uses the following o il spill scenario and assumptions in the

calculations:

• a 30-mile by 40-mile wide area would affect approximately 3,108 km 2 of ocean surface with oil sheen,

• a 150 ft by 250 ft area of heavy crude would affect 0.0035 km 2 of water,

• a 9-mile long by 3-mile wide stretch of coastal habitat affected by tarballs would impact approximately 70 km 2 of water, and

• individuals are assumed to be resident in the area during the duration of the spill so animals aren’t repeatedly counted, but may be repeatedly exposed during the duration of the spill.

Table 7. One-day exposure estimates of sea turt les to a major oil slick occurring over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed lease sales.

Spill Area (km 2 ) b leatherback (0.0026) green (0.0142) Kemp’s ridley (0.0047) loggerhead (0.0443) hawksbill (0.0000)

3,108 (sheen) 8.08 44.13 14.61 137.68 <0.05 0.0035 (heavy crude) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 70 (tarballs) 0.18 1 0.33 3.10 <0.05

a Numbers in ( ) following each species name are upper confidence limits of greatest reported density in water depths <200 m of the western GOM reported in Epperly et al. 2002.

In the event an oil spill were to occur, the actual numbers of indi viduals affected would be dependent upon the size and location of the slick, the type of oil released, and the

abundance of sea turtles in the area. Since ta rballs may persist in the environment over a much longer period than the slick lasts, an additional number of tu rtles could potentially be adversely affected by tarb all ingestion. Alt hough direct exposure to heavy crude would likely be lethal due to heavy oiling of the entire body surface, the risk of exposure to heavy crude is very low due to the small surface area. Risk of exposure to the sheen is much greater due to the greater surface area of oil spreading across the surface the water.

Hatchlings and juveniles are expe cted to be more vulnerable to lethal effects of oil spills due to their increased time at the surface, sma ller size, and lesser mobility than that of adults. Although short-term physiological e ffects may occur depending on the level and duration of exposure, most fatalities due to oiling are from covering of the mouth and nares (nostrils) that can prevent an animal from breathing if the individuals we not treated. Because the amount of oiling of ha tchlings may vary depending on factors such as the thickness of the sheen at the surface, the duration of the spill, and whether or not

the animals were recovered and rehabilita te during oil spill response, we expect approximately one-half of exposed hatchlings a nd juveniles to be killed due to a major oil spill. Lethality of adults would be expected to be much lower than that of hatchlings due to their greater size, strength, and mobili ty. Although short-term physiological effects

have been shown to occur in adult sea turtles, we estimate that approximately 1 in 10 adults will suffer chronic affects resulting in death from a major oil spill.

79The exposure estimates to a surface sheen of a given area are considered reliable since animals must surface to breathe. However, wh en considering tarball ingestion, tarballs will not be evenly distributed and a sea turtle must actually ingest the tarball to be affected such that exposure does not necessari ly equate to a take. Addtionally, although tarballs may persist in th e environment for unknown durations, making predictions of take by ingestion is problematic due to uncer tainties in actually encounter rates during foraging, and whether the tarballs resulted from an accidental spill, or from other sources such as natural seeps and bilge water disc harges. Due to the uncertainty regarding actually encounter rates between sea turtles and tarballs in th e environment, we must rely on an approximate estimate that tarballs from a large oil spill would persist for 5 years and be encountered by any i ndividual once per year.

Although the occurrence, size, time of year, and location of an oil spill is highly unpredictable, we expect sea turtles to be adve rsely affected by a major oil spill. Due to

the lack of data of life hist ory stages and the unpredictable location of a major oil spill occurring, we have made the assumption that hatchlings/juveniles and adult sea turtle have an equal chance of being affected by an oil spill; however, when the number of

individuals taken is an odd numb er, we expect adults to have the slightly higher risk of tarball ingestion due to thei r generally greater amount of prey ingested than smaller individuals. We estimate the following take of sea turtles from a major oil spill occurring during the 40-year lifetim e of the proposed action.

Species Sheen Tarball Ingestion

Lethal Non-Lethal Lethal Non-Lethal

Hatchlings/Juveniles (0.50 lethal)

leatherback 2 2 0 0

green 11 11 0 2 Kemps’ ridley 8 7 0 1 loggerhead 35 34 0 7

Adults (0.10 lethal)

leatherback 0 4 0 1

green 2 20 0 3 Kemps’ ridley 1 7 0 1 loggerhead 7 62 0 8

hawksbill 0 0 0 1

Numbers greater than 0.50 have been rounded up to the nearest whole number. The risk of hawksbill sea turtles being is low, but spills occurring in south Texa s may affect this species through tarball ingestion.

Sperm Whales Although some sperm whales may be able to avoi d oil spills or slicks following detection of hydrocarbons at the surface, it is highly unlikely that they are capable of avoiding spill residuals in their environment. Consequen tly, the probability that a marine mammal is exposed to hydrocarbons resulting from a spill extends well after the oil spill has dispersed, and may be exposed to residuals of oils spilled as a re sult of the proposed actions during their lifetimes, but the eff ects of these residuals is largely unknown. Although an interaction w ith a spill could occur, primarily sublethal effects are expected

80due to avoidance and natural dispersion/ weathering of the spill in the offshore environment or long-term exposure to hydroc arbons in the marine environment.

Based on the majority of oil production closer to shore and oil spills 75% of oil spills occurring within 3 nmi of the shoreline, there is a lower likelihood of sperm whales being exposed to oil slicks over th e 40-year lifetime of the action. However, because spills are unpredictable events and sperm whales can be found throughout the GOM, it is likely at least one sperm whale will come into contact w ith a slick if a spill were to occur in an area being used by sperm whales at that time. Considering the density of sperm whales in the GOM (0.0035 individuals km -2 ) and the spill area of a major oil spill sheen in Table 7 (3,108 km 2 ), we estimate the following take of sperm whales:

• 11 non-lethal takes of sperm whales ove r the 40-year lifetime of the action.

Gulf sturgeon Due to benthic habits of Gulf sturgeon, thei r presence in marine waters only during the winter, and the low risk of an oil spill cont acting them in only the western-most area of their range, there is a relativel y low risk of exposure to oil. Because they are not known

to do not breach the surface in estuarine and marine waters, an exposure analysis to the

surface slick has not been conducted. Howeve r, based on the oil spill risk probability, some oil may be expected to come into c ontact with Gulf sturgeon habitat over the 40- year life of the proposed lease sales, and in NMFS opinion may affect some individuals due to weathering of the slick in nearshore envi ronments along the coas tline. In general, a surface slick would not be expected to adve rsely affect Gulf sturgeon due their benthic habits; however, NMFS expects that a slick re aching shallow coastal waters less than 15 feet may mix throughout the water column and potentially affect sturgeon. two Gulf sturgeon are likely to be letha lly taken and another two non-le thally taken by an oil spill over the 40-year life of the proposed lease sa les that affect shallo w water environments where oil may mix throughout the water colu mn. Although oil spills are unpredictable events, the OSRA indicates a 6 to 9 percen t chance that a spill >42,000 gal would reach coastal waters of the westernmost portion of the Gulf sturgeon’s range within 10 days. Due to the risk of oil spills on the fringe of Gulf sturgeon’s range, we estimate the following:

• Two lethal takes of Gulf sturgeon over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed

action.

8 CUMULATIVE EFECTS

Cumulative effects include the e ffects of future state, tribal , local, or private actions, not involving federal activities, reas onably certain to occur within the ac tion area considered in this biological opinion (i.e., the WPA a nd CPA of the GOM). Future federal actions that are unrelated to the propos ed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuan t to section 7 of the ESA.

81Cumulative effects may affect sea turtle spec ies, Gulf sturgeon, sp erm whales, and their

habitats in the action area. The actions and their effects described as occurring within the

action area in the Environmental Baseline are expected to continue in the future. We are not aware of any proposed or anticipate d changes to these actions that would substantially change the impacts that each thr eat has on listed species considered by this biological opinion. Therefore, we expect the effects of these actions on listed species will

continue at similar levels into the foreseeable future.

9 JEOPARDY ANALYSIS

This section considers the lik elihood that the proposed five -year lease sale plan will jeopardize the continued existence of listed spec ies in the wild that have been considered

in the effects of the action. To Jeopardize the continued existence of is defined as “to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distri bution of that speci es” (50 CFR 402.02).

The effects of the action considered the effect s of vessel strikes on sea turtles, the effects of seismic exploration on sperm whales, and the effects of accidental oil spills on listed species of sea turtles, sperm whales, and Gu lf sturgeon resulting from the proposed fiveyear lease sale plan. The following jeopardy analysis first considers the effects of the action to determine if we would reasonably e xpect the action to result in reductions in reproduction, numbers, or distribu tion of these listed species. The analysis next considers the effects of the action in light of the stat us of the species, the environmental baseline, and cumulative effects, to determine whether the likelihood of survival of each species in the wild, and the likelihood of recovery of each species in the wild, would be appreciably

reduced.

9.1 Effects of the Action on the Li kelihood of Survival in the Wild This section analyzes the effects of the action on the likelihood of survival of each species in the wild. In this context, the su rvival of the species refers to the continued existence of the species in the wild, and wh ether or not any anticip ated take of that species will result in any reduction in repr oduction, numbers, or di stribution of that species that may appreciably increase a sp ecies’ risk of extinction in the wild.

Likelihood of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Survival

In the following analysis, we demonstrate that although some short-term reduction in numbers and reproduction is expected, the antic ipated take of loggerhead sea turtles will not appreciably increase the risk of extin ction of this species in the wild.

The non-lethal take of 238 individuals by vesse l strike and 111 indi viduals by oil spill over the 40-year lifetime of the action could potentially result in short-term affects on

individuals. Sea turtles ar e generally known to not avoid oil slicks, and are often found near oil and gas operations. Changes in dist ribution, even short-te rm, are not expected from non-lethal takes from oil spills. Howe ver, interactions with vessels may elicit startle or avoidance responses and the effects of the propos ed lease sales may result in

82temporary changes in behavior of sea turtle s (minutes to hours) ove r small areas, but are not expected to reduce the dist ribution of any loggerhead sea turtles in the action area. Lethal takes by vessel strike or oil spill may occur anywhere throughout the GOM. The removal of 119 individuals by ve ssel strike and 42 individual s by oil spill is anticipated over 40 years of the proposed action. Because all the potential takes are expected to occur anywhere in the action area and sea turt les generally have large ranges in which they disperse, no reduction in the distribution of loggerheads is expected from the take of

these individuals.

Although changes in distribution will not o ccur, there is some potential for the reproductive ability of non-lethally taken turtles to be affected due to the presence of nesting beaches within reach of potential oil spills. For example, if a nesting beach was affected by an oil slick, nesting ability or hatchling survival could potentially be affected for that year, but the indivi dual is expected to survive and return to unimpeded reproduction in subsequent years. Some long-term, non-lethal effects to hydrocarbon residues from spills and ingesti on of tarballs may affect sea turtle physiology. In spite of these effects, it appears non- lethal, chronic exposure or re peated ingestion of oil is necessary for any long-term affects to be detectable, yet no effect s on the reproduction or number of sea turtles from long-term exposure to residuals or tarball ingestions have been observed in the wild. Non-lethal takes by ve ssel strike aren’t expected to have any measurable impact on the reproduction of numb ers of loggerheads. The reaction to and injury incurred from vessel impacts would be dependent on the operational speed of the vessel, depth of the turtle, bow type, and othe r factors. The non-lethal takes may range

from startle reactions to minor injury, and are expected to recover within an appropriate amount of time, depending on the magnitude of impact. Although the range of impacts of non-lethal takes are variable, all are expe cted to be fully recoverable such that no reductions in reproduction or numbers of loggerheads are anticipated.

The removal of 119 individuals by vessel strike and 42 individuals by oil spill (approximately 4 individuals annually), would result in an instantaneous, but temporary reduction in total population numbers. Sea turtle s lethally affected by vessels and spilled oil may be juveniles or adults, with about 2 adults and 3 juveniles every 1.5 years, of

which half those adults would be mature females (about 33 adult females over the 40- year lifetime of the lease sales). Thus, th e action will result in a reduction of loggerhead numbers. Sea turtle mortality resulting from vessel interactions or spilled oil could result in the loss of reproductive value of an adult tu rtle. An adult loggerh ead sea turtle can lay 3 or 4 clutches of eggs every 2 to 4 years, with 100 to 130 eggs per clutch. The annual loss of 1.5 adult females, on average, could pr eclude the production of thousands of eggs and hatchlings, of which a small percentage ar e expected to survive to sexual maturity. Thus, the death of a female eliminates an indi vidual’s contribution to future generations,

and the action will result in a reduction in loggerhead reproduction. Below, we consider the population trends for loggerhead sea turt les and the effect that the anticipated reduction in numbers and reproduction ha s on the survival of the species.

Five northwestern Atlantic loggerhead s ubpopulations have been identified (NMFS SEFSC 2001). The most recent reviews show that only two loggerhead nesting beaches

83have greater than 10,000 females nesting pe r year: South Florida (U.S.) and Masirah Island (Oman). Total estimated nesting in the U.S. is approximately 68,000 to 90,000 nests per year. A yet-to-be-published analysis of nes ting data from 1989-2005 by FWRI indicates there is a trend for declining nes ting at beaches utilized by the south Florida nesting subpopulation (2006 FWRI letter (McRae) to NMFS, based on statewide nesting beach survey data analyzed by FWRI). Similarly, long-term nesting data show loggerhead nesting declines in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Loggerhead populations in Honduras, Mexico, Colombia, Israel, Turkey, Bahamas, Cuba, Greece, Japan, and Panama have been declining.

In other regions, the Eastern Atlantic, the Ca pe Verde Islands support an intermediatelysized loggerhead nesting assemblage. In 2000, researchers tagge d over 1,000 nesting females on just 5 km (3.1 mi) of beach on Bo avista Island (Ehrhart et al. 2003). In the Western Atlantic (excluding the U.S.), published and unpublished reports provide an estimate of about 4,000 nests per year in Brazil (Ehrhart et al. 2003). In the Mediterranean, the recorded number of nests pe r year in Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Tunisia, and Turkey, loggerhead nesting in the Me diterranean ranges from about 3,300 to 7,000 nests per season (Margaritoulis et al. 2003). A small, but unknown nesting population size of loggerheads nest throughout the Indian Ocean.

All life stages are important to the survival of the species; however, it is important to note that

individuals of one life st age are not equivalent to those of other life stages. Loggerhead sea turtles have very long developmental times be fore reaching maturity (up to 38 years). Individuals in earlier life stages are subject to many potential s ources of mortality, both natural and human-induced, prior to reaching sexual maturit y. Only a fraction of pelagic juveniles are ever expected to contribute to the population through reproduction, and thus are not as valuable to the population as a breeding age adult. The lo ss of a certain number of pelagic juveniles, therefore, is less of a threat to the species’ su rvival compared to an equal loss of sexually-mature

adults.

It is unclear at this time if the current data from major nesting beaches indicate a declining trend in total populat ion size, or is the result of some other factor such as regional failure to nest by the reproductiv ely mature females, variable recruitment resulting in a biased age structure in the population, environmental factors (e.g., resource depletion, nesting beach conditions, oceanographic conditions, etc.), or some natural variation in nesting patterns over time. Whether the decreased trend some subpopulations are currently experiencing are associated with affects these populations experienced decades ago, or is associated w ith some other variable currently affecting nesting numbers is unknown. How these nestin g trends will change in the future is uncertain at this time and being anal yzed by the TEWG. Although some natural variability is expected in nesting trends, recruitment of adults into the breeding population could potentially oc cur if this trend continue s over the long-term.

The low number of expected loggerhead mort alities (approximatel y four individuals annually of different sex and age classes) is not detectab le. Considering the population

size in the Western North Atla ntic, we believe the loggerh ead population is sufficiently

84large enough to persist and recr uit new individuals to replace t hose expected to be taken. The TEWG (1998) estimated th e total loggerhead population of benthic individuals in

U.S. waters – a subset of the whole Western Atlantic population – at over 200,000. Based on this estimate, the mortality of 161 loggerheads (approximately 81 juveniles, 40 male adults, and 40 female adults) over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed action would

be less than 0.0009% of the current total eastern U.S. population.

Although the anticipated mortal ities would result in an in stantaneous reduction in absolute population numbers, it is likely that the U.S. populati ons of sea turtles would not be appreciably affected considering the following. For a population to remain stable, sea turtles must replace themselves through su ccessful reproduction at least once over the course of their reproductive liv es, and at least one offspri ng must survive to reproduce itself. If the hatchling survival rate to matu rity is greater than th e mortality rate of the population, the loss of breeding individuals would be replaced th rough recruitment of new breeding individuals from successful re production of non-taken sea turtles. Although the causes of the declining trend of major nesting s ubpopulations are unknown at this time, the present popul ation size is sufficiently large for the persiste nce of this species. This is evident in th is analysis by the fact that loggerheads are expected to be taken in greater numbers than other species of sea turtles due to their higher abundance and densities in the GOM, despite the negati ve trend in nesting observed over the last several years. Although the declining numbers of major nesting subpopulations requires further study and analysis to determine the causes and long-term effects on population dynamics, the species’ likelihood of survival in the wild will not be appreciably reduced

as a result of this action..

Summary of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Survival Based on the above analysis, we believe that th e lethal and non-lethal takes of loggerhead sea turtles associated with the proposed act ion are not reasonably expected to cause, directly or indirectly, an a ppreciable reduction in the likeli hood of survival of loggerhead

sea turtles in the wild.

Likelihood of Leatherback Sea Turtle Survival In the following analysis, we demonstrate that although some short-term reduction in numbers and reproduction is expected, the anticip ated take of leatherback sea turtles will not appreciably increase the risk of extin ction of this species in the wild.

The non-lethal take of 21 individuals by vessel strike and 7 individuals by oil spill over the 40-year lifetime of the action could poten tially result in short-term affects on

individuals. Sea turtles ar e generally known to not avoid oil slicks, and are often found near oil and gas operations. Changes in dist ribution, even short-te rm, are not expected from non-lethal takes from oil spills. Howe ver, interactions with vessels may elicit startle or avoidance responses and the effects of the propos ed lease sales may result in temporary changes in behavior of sea turtle s (minutes to hours) ove r small areas, but are not expected to appreciably reduce the distribu tion of leatherback sea turtles in the action area. Lethal takes by vessel strike or oil spill may occur anywhere throughout the GOM. The removal of 10 individuals by vessel strike and 2 individuals by oil spill is anticipated

85over 40 years of the proposed action. Because all the potential takes are expected to occur anywhere in the action area and sea turt les generally have large ranges in which they disperse, no reduction in the distribution of leatherbacks is expected from the take of

these individuals.

When considering the non-lethal effects of an oil spill, leatherbacks have the greatest potential to be affected by sp ills in pelagic environments. Nesting by leatherbacks in the GOM is sporadic and no major nesting beach es occur in this re gion. The habitat of leatherbacks in the GOM is typically found in deeper, offshore waters. Due to this habitat, they are typically less vulnerable to spills, of which 75 pe rcent occur within 3

nmi of shore. Leatherbacks are deep divers foraging on pr ey in the water column and may ingest tarballs. Although some physiologi cal effects may occur from exposure, they are expected to be inconsequential on re production. Non-lethal takes by vessel strike aren’t expected to have any measurable imp act on the reproduction of leatherbacks. The reaction to and injury incurred from ve ssel impacts would be dependent on the operational speed of the vessel, depth of the tu rtle, bow type, and other factors. The nonlethal takes may range from startle reactions to minor injury, and i ndividuals are expected to recover within an appropriate amount of time, depending on the magnitude of impact. Although the range of impacts of non- lethal takes are variable, al l are expected to be fully recoverable such that no reduction in repr oduction or numbers of leatherbacks are anticipated.

A total of 10 leatherbacks are expected to be lethally taken by vessel strike and 2 by oil spill over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed lease sales (approximately 1 individual every 3.3 years, on average). Leatherbacks le thally taken by vessels and spilled oil may be juveniles or adults, with about 5 adults and 7 juveniles over a pe riod of 40 years, of

which half those adults would be mature females (about 2-3 adult females over the 40- year lifetime of the lease sales). Thus, the action will result in a reduction of leatherback numbers. The expected mortal ities will eliminate an individu al’s contribution to future generations; thus, resulting in a reduction in reproduction. Below, we consider the population trends for leatherback sea turtles a nd the effect that th e anticipated reduction in numbers and reproduction has on the survival of the species.

The Pacific Ocean leatherback population is ge nerally smaller in size than that in the

Atlantic Ocean. Because adult female leathe rbacks frequently nest on different beaches, nesting population estimates and tr ends are especially difficult to monitor. In the Pacific, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) notes th at most leatherback nesting populations have declined more than 80%. In other areas of the leatherback's range, observed declines in nesting populati ons are not as severe, and some population trends are increasing or stable. Nesting trends on U.S. b eaches have been increasing in recent years. Leatherback nesting trends for individual b eaches are considerably variable, dependent upon natural fluctuations in beach conditions throughout the Atlantic basin; therefore, basin-wide estimates may be a better indica tor of population trends than nesting data trends for individual beaches. Spotila et al. (2001) estimated that the mean population

number of leatherbacks in the Atlantic basin totaled approximately 27,600 nesting

86females (20,082-35,133). We believe that the cu rrent population probably still lies within this range, taking into account the natural variation at individual nesting beaches.

Similar to the discussion of the relative importance of various life stages in the loggerhead section above, the removal of diffe rent age classes or sexes has different consequences on the population of leatherbacks as well. According to Spotila et al. (1996), survivorship in the juve nile/sub-adult stage of leathe rback sea turtles is vitally important to the future of the species; populati on models are most sensitive to variation in juvenile/sub-adult survival. The number of individuals in the various stages would also not be as disparate in leatherbacks as in loggerheads. Assuming an equal chance or mortality for both juveniles and adults, only 2-3 adult female leatherbacks would be expected to be removed from the populati on over 40 years. Although the death of a

female eliminates an individual’s contribution to future generations and may result in a reduction in reproduction, the low number of lethal takes for leatherbacks from the proposed action indicates a gr eater chance of successful breeding or replacement of individuals through recruitment.

For example, if a leatherback successfully nested in a single nesting season and only one of those hatchlings survived to maturity to breed, there would be no net gain or loss to population numbers. Increasing numbers of hatc hlings surviving to maturity would result in a net increase in population numbers, as l ong as the overall recr uitment rate exceeds the death in the population. If a mature female leatherback were taken prior to successful nesting and recruitment of an individual to the breeding populati on, a net decrease in population size of that individual would be incurred. However, a net loss is not expected. Although the mortality of a few individuals would have an instantaneous decease in absolute population numbers at the time of taking, ba sed on the population size and increasing nesting trend in recent years, the mortality of 12 individuals over 40 years is expected to have a negligible impact on population numbers. Even assuming all mortalities would consist of nesting fema les, based on the lower female nesting population estimate of 20,084 individuals in the Atlantic, the removal of 12 individuals would be <0.0007 of the total population. The replacement of these 12 individuals through recruitment of new indi viduals into the breeding po pulation; by at least 12 sea turtles producing at least 2 offs pring that survive to adult hood to reproduce, is expected in a population of this size. The expected mo rtality of leatherbacks is not expected to appreciably reduce the species’ likeli hood of survival in the wild.

Summary of Leatherback Sea Turtle Survival Based on the above analysis, we believe th at the lethal and non-lethal takes of leatherback sea turtles associated with the pr oposed action are not reasonably expected to cause, directly or indirectly, an appreciabl e reduction in the likelihood of survival of

leatherback sea turtles in the wild.

Likelihood of Kemp’s Ri dley Sea Turtle Survival In the following analysis, we demonstrate that although some short-term reduction in numbers and reproduction is expe cted, the anticipated take of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles will not appreciably increase the risk of ex tinction of this species in the wild.

87The non-lethal take of 26 individuals by vessel strike and 16 individu als by oil spill over the 40-year lifetime of the action could poten tially result in short-term affects on

individuals. Sea turtles ar e generally known to not avoid oil slicks, and are often found near oil and gas operations. Changes in dist ribution, even short-te rm, are not expected from non-lethal takes from oil spills. Howe ver, interactions with vessels may elicit startle or avoidance responses and the effects of the propos ed lease sales may result in temporary changes in behavior of sea turtle s (minutes to hours) ove r small areas, but are not expected to reduce the distri bution of any Kemp’s ridley s ea turtles in the action area. Lethal takes by vessel strike or oil spill may occur anywhere throughout the GOM. The removal of 13 individuals by vessel strike and 9 individuals by oil sp ill is anticipated over 40 years of the proposed action. Because all the potential takes are expected to occur anywhere in the action area and sea turtles generally have large ranges in which they disperse, no appreciable changes in the distribution of Kemp’s ridleys is expected from

the take of these individuals.

Although changes in distribution will not o ccur, there is some potential for the reproductive ability of non-lethally taken turtles to be affect ed due to the presence of nesting beaches within reach of potential oil spills. For example, if a nesting beach was affected by an oil slick, nesting ability or hatchling survival could potentially be affected for that year, but the indivi dual is expected to survive and return to unimpeded reproduction in subsequent years. Although o il spills are unpredictable, historical spill data show that large spills are uncommon in the GOM, and spill response plans to protect coastal resources reduce the likelihood that spills will affecting nesting beaches. Some long-term, non-lethal effects to hydrocarbon residues from spills and ingestion of tarballs may affect sea turtle physiology. In spite of these effects, it app ears non-lethal, chronic exposure or repeated ingestion of oil is necessary for any long-term affects to be detectable, yet no effects on the reproduction or number of sea turtles from long-term exposure to residuals or tarba ll ingestion have been observe d in the wild. Non-lethal takes by vessel strike aren’t expected to have any measurable impact on the reproduction or numbers of Kemp’s ridleys. The reacti on to and injury incurred from vessel impacts would be dependent on the operational speed of the vessel, depth of the turtle, bow type, and other factors. The non-lethal takes may range from startle reactions to minor injury, and are expected to recove r within an appropriate amount of time, depending on the magnitude of impact. Although the range of im pacts of non-lethal ta kes are variable, all are expected to be fully recoverable such that no reductions in reproduction or numbers of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are anticipated.

A total of 13 Kemp’s ridleys are expected to be lethally taken by vessel strike and 9 individuals by oil spills over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed lease sales (approximately 1 individual every 2.2 years, on average). Thus, the action will result in a reduction of Kemp’s ridley numbers. The expected mortalities will eliminate an

individual’s contribution to future generations; thus, re sulting in a reduction in reproduction. Below, we consider the populati on trends for Kemp’s ridley sea turtles and the effect that the anticipa ted reduction in numbers and reproduction has on the survival of the species.

88The total population of Kemp’s ridleys is not known, but nesting has been increasing significantly in the past severa l years (9 to 13 percent per year) with a trajectory that should meet or exceed recovery goals. Kemps’ ridleys mature and nest at an age of 7-15 years, which is earlier than other chelonids. A younger age at maturity may be a factor in the response of this species to recovery actions. A period of steady increase in benthic immature ridleys has been occurring sin ce 1990 and appears to be due to increased hatchling production and an apparent increase in survival rates of immature sea turtles beginning in 1990. The increased survivorship of immature sea turtles is attributable, in part, to the introduction of tu rtle excluder devices (TEDs) in the United States and Mexican shrimping fleets and Mexican beach protection efforts. The TEWG (2000) projected that Kemp’s ridleys could reach th e Recovery Plan’s intermediate recovery goal of 10,000 nesters by the year 2015.

Similar to the discussion of the relative importance of various life stages in the loggerhead section above, the removal of diffe rent age classes or sexes has different consequences on the population of Kemp’s ridley s as well. Lethal takes by vessel strike or oil spill may occur at random anywhere throughout the GOM, are will not affect the distribution of this species in any way. Ke mp’s ridleys taken by ve ssels and spilled oil may be juveniles or adults, with an estimated 8 adults every 5 years, of which half those adults would be mature females (about 1 adul t female every 10 years, or approximately 4 females over the 40-year lifetime of the lease sales).

All life stages are important to the survival and recovery of the species; however, it is important to note that individuals of one life stage are not equi valent to those of other life stages. Individuals in earl ier life stages are subject to many potential sources of mortality, both natural and human-induced, pr ior to reaching sexual maturity. Only a fraction of pelagic juveniles are ever expected to cont ribute to the population through reproduction, and thus are not as valuable to the population as a br eeding age adult. Sea turtle mortality resulting from vessel inter actions or spilled oil could result in the loss of reproductive value of an adult turtle. The loss of 1 adult females every 10 years, on average, could preclude the production of t housands of eggs and hatchlings, of which a small percentage are expected to survive to sexual maturity. However, the population of Kemp’s ridleys is increasing and the removal of these individuals is not expected to have any detectable impact on population numbers in the wild. The proportional change in overall survival of Kemp’s ridleys from the loss of one individual every two years would be insignificant. The number of younger sea turtles recruiting into the adult or subadult population and their future potential reproduc tive value would quickly exceed the

incidental take of these individuals and its future reproductive value.

Based on the above analysis, the anticipated lethal take of 22 individuals on the population would not be expected to be detectable.

Summary of Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Survival Based on the above analysis, we believe that the lethal and non-lethal takes of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles associated with the pr oposed action are not r easonably expected to

89cause, directly or indirectly, an appreciabl e reduction in the likelihood of survival of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in the wild.

Likelihood of Green Sea Turtle Survival In the following analysis, we demonstrate that although some short-term reduction in numbers and reproduction is expe cted, the anticipated take of green sea turtles will not appreciably increase the ri sk of extinction of this species in the wild.

The non-lethal take of 76 individuals by vessel strike and 36 individu als by oil spills over the 40-year lifetime of the action could potenti ally result in short-term effects in the

fitness of individuals. Sea tu rtles are generally known to not avoid oil slicks, and are often found near oil and gas ope rations. Changes in turtle distribution, even short-term, are not expected from oil spills. However, in teractions with vessels may elicit startle or avoidance responses and the effects of the proposed lease sales ma y result in temporary changes in behavior of sea tur tles (minutes to days) over sma ll areas, but are not expected to reduce the distribution of any green sea turtles in th e action area. Lethal takes by vessel strike or oil spill ma y occur anywhere throughout the GOM. The removal of 38 individuals by vessel strike and 13 individuals by oil spill is anticipated over 40 years of the proposed action. Because all the potential takes are expected to occur anywhere in the action area and sea turtles generally have large ranges in which they disperse, no reduction in the distribution of green sea tu rtles is expected from the take of these

individuals.

Although changes in distribution will not o ccur, there is some potential for the reproductive ability of non-lethally taken turtles to be affect ed due to the presence of nesting beaches within reach of potential oil spills. For example, if a nesting beach was affected by an oil slick, nesting ability or hatchling survival could potentially be affected for that year, but the indivi dual is expected to survive and return to unimpeded reproduction in subsequent years. Although oil spills are unpredictable, there are no green sea turtle nesting beaches likely to aff ected by oil spills resulting from the proposed action. Some long-term, non-lethal effect s to hydrocarbon residues from spills and ingestion of tarballs may affect sea turtle phys iology. In spite of thes e effects, it appears non-lethal, chronic exposure or repeated ingestion of oil is necessary for any long-term effects to be detectable, yet no effects on th e reproduction or number of sea turtles from long-term exposure to oil residuals or tarball i ngestions have been observed in the wild. Non-lethal takes by vessel stri ke are not expected to have any measurable impact on the reproduction or numbers of green sea turtles. The reaction to and injury incurred from vessel impacts would be dependent on the ope rational speed of the vessel, depth of the turtle, bow type, and other factors. The non-le thal takes may range fr om startle reactions to minor injury, and turtles are expected to recover within an appr opriate amount of time, depending on the magnitude of impact. A lthough the range of im pacts of non-lethal takes is variable, all impacts are expected to be fully recoverable from such that no effects to reproduction or numbers of green sea turtles are anticipated.

The lethal take of 38 green sea turtles by ve ssel strikes and 13 indi viduals by oil spills over a period of 40 years of the proposed action (1.3 individuals per year, on average)

90would result in an instantaneous decrease in absolute population numbers for that year, albeit an undetectable decrease. Thus, the action will result in a reduction of green sea turtle numbers. The expected mortalities wi ll eliminate an indivi dual’s contribution to future generations; thus, resulting in a reduc tion in reproduction. Below, we consider the population trends for green sea turtles and th e effect that the an ticipated reduction in numbers and reproduction has on th e survival of the species.

The two largest nesting populations are f ound at Tortuguero, on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica, and Raine Island, on the Great Ba rrier Reef in Australia, where an annual average of 22,500 and 18,000 females nest per season, respectively. In the U.S., green turtles nest primarily along the central and southeast coast of Florida; present estimates range from 200-1,100 females nesting annually. The total population of green turtles is not known, but nesting activity in Florida a nd the major Caribbean nesting beach at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, has increased over th e long-term and populati ons are stable or increasing.

All life stages are important to the survival and recovery of the species; however, it is important to note that individuals of one life stage are not equi valent to those of other life stages. Individuals in earl ier life stages are subject to many potential sources of mortality, both natural and human-induced, pr ior to reaching sexual maturity. Only a fraction of pelagic juveniles are ever expected to cont ribute to the population through reproduction, and thus are not as valuable to the population as a br eeding age adult. Sea turtle mortality resulting from vessel inter actions or spilled oil could result in the loss of reproductive value of an adult turtle. The loss of 7-8 adult fe males over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed action (1 female ever y 5-6 years), could preclude the production of thousands of eggs and hatchlings, of whic h a small percentage are expected to survive to sexual maturity. However, the proportiona l change in overall su rvival of green sea turtles from the loss of one female every 5- 6 years would be insignificant. The number of younger sea turtles recruiting into the adult or subadult population and their future potential reproductive value woul d quickly exceed the incidental take of these individuals and its future reproductive value.

The 51 takes over the 40-year lifetime of the pr oposed action is not expected to result in any detectable change in the population’s growth rate. Recr uitment into the population is expected to replace these indi viduals, allowing the species to quickly recover from this relatively small number of deaths annually. The removal of a low number of individuals of these species is not expect ed to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of green sea turtles in the wild.

Summary of Green Sea Turtle Survival Based on the above analysis, we believe that th e lethal and non-lethal takes of green sea turtles associated with the proposed action are not reasonably expected to cause, directly or indirectly, an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of survival of green sea turtles in

the wild.

91Likelihood of Hawksbill Sea Turtle Survival In the following analysis, we demonstrate that although some short-term reduction in numbers and reproduction is expected, the antic ipated take of hawksbill sea turtles will not appreciably increase the risk of extin ction of this species in the wild.

The non-lethal take of 1 individual by vesse l strike and 1 individual by oil spill over the 40-year lifetime of the action co uld potentially result in short- term affects on individuals. Sea turtles are generally known to not avoid o il slicks, and are often found near oil and gas operations. We anticipate 1 individual may be struck and killed by a vessel impact over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed acti on. The numbers of non-lethal and lethal

takes of hawksbill sea turtles are low, a total of 3 over the 40 lifetime of the action.

Because such a small number of animals are expected to be taken (1 individual every 13.3 years, on average), no reduction in th e distribution of hawksbill sea turtles is expected from lethal and non-lethal takes.

The non-lethal take of 1 individual by vessel strike and 1 individual by oil spills (tarball ingestion) over the 40-year lifetime of the action could potentially result in short-term

effects in the fitness of i ndividuals. Adult foraging hab itat, which may or may not overlap with developmental ha bitat, is typically coral r eefs, although other hard-bottom communities and occasionally mangrove-fring ed bays may be occupied. Although hawksbills may occasionally be expected to be found in the action area, this species’ habitats are found mainly along peninsular Flor ida and Mexico, and they are expected to be of low density and rare in the action area. Despite their rarity, 1 tu rtle may have a risk of ingesting tarballs due to the persistence of tarballs after a slick has dissipated. Nonlethal takes by vessel strike are not expect ed to have any measurable impact on the reproduction or numbers of hawksbill sea turtle s. The reaction to and injury incurred from vessel impacts would be dependent on the operational speed of the vessel, depth of the turtle, bow type, and other factors. The non-lethal takes may range from startle reactions to minor injury, and turtles are e xpected to recover w ithin an appropriate amount of time, depending on the magnitude of impact. Although the range of impacts of non-lethal takes is variable, all impacts are expected to be fully recoverable from such that no reduction in reproduction or number s of hawksbill sea tur tles are anticipated.

The lethal take of one hawksbill by vessel strike is expected over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed action. Thus, the action will result in a reduction of hawksbill numbers. If the animal lethally taken were a female, a reduction in reproduction may be incurred. Below, we consider the population trends for hawksbill sea turtles and the effect that the anticipated reduction in numbers and reproduc tion has on the survival of the species.

Hawksbills are solitary nesters and, thus, de termining population trends or estimates on nesting beaches is difficult. Hawksbills are not common in the action area, but solitary turtles have been occasionally sighted in sha llow, coastal waters. Within the continental U.S., nesting is restricted to the southeast coast of Florida and the Florida Keys, but nesting is rare in these areas. The larg est populations of hawk sbills are found in the Caribbean, the Republic of Seychelles, Indonesi a, and Australia. The most significant nesting within the U.S. occurs in Puerto Ri co and the U.S. Virgin Islands, specifically on

92Mona Island and Buck Island, respectivel y. Each year, about 500-1000 hawksbill nests are laid on Mona Island, Puerto Rico (Díez and van Dam 2006) and another 100-150

nests on Buck Island Reef National Monument o ff St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Nesting also occurs on other beaches in St . Croix and on St. John, St. Thomas, Culebra Island, Vieques Island, and mainland Puerto Rico. In addition to nesting beaches in the U.S. Caribbean, hawksbills nest at numerous other sites throughout the Caribbean, with the majority of nesting occurring in Mexico and Cuba. In Mexico, about 2,800 hawksbills nest in Campeche, Yucatán, and Quintana Roo each year (Spotila 2004). Lutz et al. (2003) estimate the number of adult hawksbills living in the Caribbean today is 27,000. In the Pacific, the largest nesting popu lation of hawksbills a ppears to occur in Australia with approximately 2,000 hawksbills nest on the northwest coast of Australia and about 6,000 to 8,000 off the Great Barr ier Reef each year (Spotila 2004).

In spite of their low potential to be affected in the action area, a potential exists for one

hawksbill sea turtle to be leth ally taken over the 40-year lif etime of the proposed action. There is a 50% probability the individual coul d be an immature or mature female sea turtle. Even if a single female hawksbill s ea turtle were removed from the population, the effects on the size and reproductive value to the population would not be detectable.

Summary of Hawksbill Sea Turtle Survival Based on the above analysis, we believe that the lethal and non-lethal takes of hawksbill sea turtles associated with the proposed act ion are not reasonably expected to cause, directly or indirectly, an appreciable reducti on in the likelihood of survival of hawksbill

sea turtles in the wild.

Likelihood of Gulf Sturgeon Survival In the following analysis, we demonstrate that although some short-term reduction in numbers and reproduction is expected, the an ticipated take of Gulf sturgeon will not appreciably increase the ri sk of extinction of this species in the wild.

Although some lethal takes from oil spills are expected, oil floats and is expected to impact the environment for short periods of time; therefore, oil spills are not expected to result in any reduction in the distribution of Gulf sturgeon. Takes ar e expected to occur in the GOM, rather than rivers, and are th erefore potentially e xpected to effect reproductive fish. Two individual Gulf sturgeon are anticipated to be lethally taken by oil spills over the 40-year lifetime of the propos ed action; thus, the action will result in a reduction in numbers and reproduction for Gu lf sturgeon. Below, we consider the population trends for Gulf sturgeon and the e ffect that the anticip ated reduction in numbers and reproduction has on th e survival of the species.

Gulf sturgeon occur in most major tri butaries of the northeastern GOM, from the Mississippi River east to Florida’s Suwannee River, and in the central and eastern

nearshore Gulf waters as far south as Charlo tte Harbor, Florida. While little is known about the abundance of Gulf sturgeon thr oughout most of its range, population estimates have been calculated for the Apalachicola (115 individuals), Choctawhatchee (2,000 to 3,000 individuals), and Suwannee Rivers (7,650 i ndividuals). Genetic studies show that

93Gulf sturgeon exhibit river-specific fidelity. Based on analysis of oil spills occurring within the range of Gu lf sturgeon, the two leth al takes of Gulf sturgeon expected would

occur for fish native to Lake Pontchartr ain/Pearl River subpopulation, for which no population numbers have been conducted.

Although no population estimates are available for the Lake Pontch artrain/Pearl River subpopulation, the range-wide decline in the Gulf sturgeon population appears to have been arrested primarily by closing the state fisheries in the 1980s. However, because the Gulf sturgeon is a long-lived, late maturing an imal, it is probable that the species requires numerous generations to achieve long-term population stability assuming that adequate

habitat is available. For instance, in the Suwannee Rive r, where sub-population numbers appear to be the greatest (approximately 7,600 individuals), only 30 to 90 females spawn in any given year. Because the affected fish are expected to be taken in the GOM, and not in spawning rivers, the two sturgeon takes ar e expected to be adults. The removal of two adults could potentially affect the number of reproductive individuals available in that year the take occurred. Factors to consider include th e sex of the animals taken, and if females, whether or not the individuals we re spawning that year. However, due to the low number of expected takes, we believe the expected remo val of two individuals by oil spill over 40 years of the proposed action will not result in any detectable effect on the population, and this specie s will continue to pers ist in the wild.

Summary of Gulf Sturgeon Survival Based on the above analysis, we believe that th e lethal takes of Gulf sturgeon associated with the proposed action are not reasonably expe cted to cause, directly or indirectly, an appreciable reduction in the li kelihood of survival of Gulf sturgeon in the wild.

Likelihood of Sperm Whale Survival In the following analysis, we demonstrate that although some short-term reduction in numbers and reproduction is expected, the antic ipated take of sperm whales will not appreciably increase the ri sk of extinction of this species in the wild.

Harassment of sperm whales resulting from seis mic surveys is not expected to result in a reduction of numbers, reproduc tion, or distribution of sper m whales in the wild. Although historical abundances of sperm wh ales in the GOM are unavailable, recent abundance estimates based on surveys (Mullin and Fulling 2003) indicated that the sperm whale population in the GOM is stable (1,349 whales). Estimates of the global sperm whale population indicate numbers exceeding at least 200,000 individuals is likely and the population appears to be recovering from the large numbers of individuals removed by whaling, the primary threat resulting in th is species’ listing. The GOM population is comprised of mostly a female population and ca lves. The effects of oil on sperm whales

in this area could be on females and immatu re animals of either sex. Any exposure to spilled oil is expected to be limited to temporary exposure to volatile compounds in the form of oil at the surface or vapors. A lthough some temporary avoidance of a spill may result, no reduction in the dist ribution of sperm whales w ould result. The non-lethal takes from oil exposure are not expected to result in any reduction in numbers of reproduction of sperm whales.

94Summary of Sperm Whale Survival Based on the above analysis, we believe th at the non-lethal takes of sperm whales associated with the proposed action are not re asonably expected to cause, directly or indirectly, an appreciable reduction in the like lihood of survival of sperm whales in the

wild.

9.2. Effects of the Action on the Like lihood of Recovery in the Wild The above analysis on the effects of the action on the likelihood of each species’ survival

in the wild considered the current status of each species and effects of the numbers of

lethal and/or non-lethal take s anticipated for each species. For species in which no reductions in the species numbers, re production, or distribution were found, we concluded no change in the species survival would be incurred. For species in which the analysis concluded expected reductions in th e number, reproduction, or distribution of the species, the effect of those reductions wa s analyzed to determine whether those reductions would appreciable reduce the like ly survival of the species. Although no appreciable change in distribution was conc luded for any species, we concluded lethal

takes would result in an instantaneous reduc tion in absolute population numbers that may also reduce reproduction, but the short-term reductions are not expected to appreciable reduce the likelihood of survival of any speci es in the wild. The following analysis

considers the effects of the ta ke on the likelihood of recovery in the wild. We consider the recovery objectives in the recovery plans prepared for ea ch species that relate to population numbers or reproduction that may be affected by any reductions in the numbers, reproduction, or distribution resul ting from the take of each species.

Likelihood of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Recovery The Atlantic recovery plan for the United St ates population of the loggerhead sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1991a), herein incorpor ated by reference, lists the following relevant recovery objective over a period of 25 continuous years:

• The adult female population in Florida is increasing and in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, it has return ed to pre-listing nesting levels (NC = 800 nests/season; SC = 10,000 nests/s eason; GA = 2,000 nests/season).

The 161 lethal takes of loggerh ead sea turtles over a period of 40-years (approximately 4 lethal takes annually) will result in a re duction in overall population numbers in any given year. One-quarter of th ese takes are expected to be adult females and may effect reproduction (approximately 1 adult female every 1.6 years or 66 adult females over 40 years of the proposed action). We have alr eady determined these takes are not likely to reduce population numbers over time due to current population sizes and expected recruitment. Non-lethal takes of loggerhead s ea turtles by vessel strikes or oil spill (8.7 non-lethal takes annually, on average, or 349 non-lethal takes over a period of 40 years) will not affect the adult female nesting populat ion or number of nests per nesting season. When considering no anticipated effects on nest ing and the fact that oil spills associated with the proposed action will not affect any of the nesting beaches listed in the recovery objective above, non-lethal takes will not re sult in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of loggerhead sea turt le recovery in the wild.

95Likelihood of Leatherback Sea Turtle Recovery The Atlantic recovery plan for the United St ates population of the leatherback sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1992), herein incorporated by reference, lists the following relevant recovery objective;

• The adult female population increases ove r the next 25 years, as evidenced by as statistically significant trend in the number of nests at Culebra, Puerto Rico, St. Croix, USVI, and along the east coast of Florida.

The lethal removal of 13 indi viduals (one individual ever y 3.1 years) will result in the instantaneous reduction in overall population numbers in any given year of the take occurring. Six of these takes are expected to be adult females. We have already determined these takes are not likely to reduce population numbers over time due to current population sizes and expected recruitm ent. The effects of this reduction in population numbers are not reason ably expected to cause, directly or indirectly, an appreciable reduction in the like lihood of leatherback sea tur tle recovery in the wild. Takes of leatherback sea turtles by vessel strike s or oil spill are not anticipated to reduce the adult female nesting population or number of nests. Accidental oil spills in the GOM will not affect any of the nesting beaches listed in the recove ry objective above.

Likelihood of Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Recovery The recovery plan for Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (USFWS and NMFS 1992), herein incorporated by reference, lists the following releva nt recovery objective:

• Attain a population of at leas t 10,000 females nesting in a season.

The lethal removal of 18 individuals (approxima tely one lethal take every 2.2 years) will

result in the instantaneous reduction in overall population numbers in any given year of a take occurring. About 1 adult female every 10 years is expected to be lethally taken, or approximately 4 females over the 40-year lifetim e of the lease sales. We have already determined these takes are not likely to reduce population numbers over time due to current population sizes and expected recruitmen t. Takes of Kemps ridley sea turtles by vessel strikes or oil spill will not affect the number of nesting females in any given nesting season. Thus, the proposed action will not result in an appr eciable reduction in the likelihood of Kemp’s ridley s ea turtle recovery in the wild.

Likelihood of Green Sea Turtle Recovery The Atlantic recovery plan for the population of green sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1991b), herein incorporated by reference, list s the following relevant recovery objectives over a period of 25 continuous years:

• The level of nesting in Florida has incr eased to an average of 5,000 nests per year for at least 6 years.

• A reduction in stage class mortality is reflected in higher counts of individuals on foraging grounds.

96The 51 lethal takes of green sea turtles over a period of 40 years (approximately 1.3 lethal takes annually, on average) will result in the instantaneous reduction in overall population numbers in any given year. We ha ve already determined these takes are not likely to reduce population numbers over ti me due to current population sizes and expected recruitment. About 11 of these takes are expected to be adult females (approximately 1 adult female and 1 juvenile every 3.6 years). No age class will be more at risk than another, and the removal of 1 juvenile every 1.3 years is not anticipated to result in any detectable effects on counts of juveniles on foraging grounds. Takes of green sea turtles by vessel strikes or oil spill will not affect either of the above recovery objectives, since neither the level of nesting nor age class mortality effects will result. Thus, the proposed action will not result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of green sea turtle rec overy in the wild.

Likelihood of Hawksbill Sea Turtle Recovery The recovery plan for the population of the hawksbill sea turt les (NMFS and USFWS 1993), herein incorporated by reference, list s the following relevant recovery objectives over a period of 25 continuous years:

• The adult female population is increasing, as evidenced by a statistically significant trend in the annual number of nests at five index beaches, including Mona Island and BIRNM.

• The numbers of adults, subadults, and juveniles are increasing, as evidenced by a statistically significant trend on at least five key foraging areas within Puerto Rico, USVI, and Florida.

We have already determined the small number of takes (1 lethal and two non-lethal) are not likely to reduce population numbers over time due to current population sizes and expected recruitment. The effect of the small number of takes over 40 years will not

affect either of the above r ecovery objectives. The take of hawksbill sea turtles is not anticipated to result in an appreciable reduc tion in the likelihood of hawksbill sea turtle recovery in the wild.

Likelihood of Gulf Sturgeon Recovery The recovery plan for the Gulf sturgeon (USF WS et al. 1995), herein incorporated by reference, lists the following relevant recovery objective:

• Defining a self-sustaining population as one where the average rate (over a 12-year period) of natural recruitmen t is at least equal to the average mortality rate.

The incidental take of two Gulf sturgeon over the 40-year life of the proposed action, even if occurring in the same year, is not expected to change the population dynamics of the population. Although there is a chance th e individuals taken may be reproductive females, the effects of this small reduction in numbers and reproducti on is not anticipated

to affect the natural recruitment of individua ls into the population, and these mortalities

97are expected to be replaced through recruitment such that th is recovery objective is not impeded. The effect of the lethal take of tw o individuals over 40 y ears is not anticipated to result in an appreciable re duction in the likelihood of Gu lf sturgeon recovery in the

wild.

Likelihood of Sperm Whale Recovery Although a final recovery plan has not been pr epared for sperm whales, a draft plan was recently updated that identifies the following re levant recovery criteria for sperm whales:

• A probability of extinction of <1 percen t in 100 years, achieved in part by a stable or increasing population for at least 80 years (or 3 generations).

No lethal takes of sperm are anticipated from this action; therefore, the non-lethal take of 11 sperm whales will not result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of sperm whale recovery in the wild.

9.3 Synthesis of Likelihood of Sur vival and Recovery in the Wild Conclusions for Sea Turtles The proposed lease sales will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery in the wild of any of the five species of sea turtles considered in this biological opinion. We conclude that th e anticipated reduction in numbe rs by take of sea turtles by vessel strikes and oil spills associated with the proposed action, when evaluated in the context of each species’ stat us, the environmental baseline, and the cumulative effects, are not expected jeopardize th e continued existence of loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, green, or hawksb ill sea turtles.

Conclusions for Gulf Sturgeon The proposed lease sales will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of Gulf sturgeon. We conclude that the anticipated reduction in numbers by take of Gulf sturgeon by oil spills associated with the proposed action, when evaluated in the context of the species’ status, the environm ental baseline, and the cumulative effects, will not affect Gulf sturgeon in a way that reduces the number of fish born in a particular year (i.e., a specific age-class), the reproduc tive success of adults, or the number of young annually recruited into the adult breeding population. It is our opinion the proposed action will not jeopardize the con tinued existence of Gulf sturgeon.

Conclusions for Sperm Whales The proposed lease sales will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of sperm whales. We conclude that the anticipated reduction in numbers by take of sperm whales by oil spills associated with the proposed action, when evaluated in the context of the species’ status, the environm ental baseline, and the cumulative effects, will not jeopardize the continued existence of sperm whales.

9810 CONCLUSION

We have analyzed the best available data, th e current status of th e species, environmental baseline, effects of the proposed action, and cu mulative effects to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the con tinued existence of any sea turtle species, Gulf sturgeon or sperm whales. The propos ed action will not appreciably reduce the

likelihood of survival and rec overy of the listed species c onsidered in this biological opinion. After reviewing the status of l eatherback, loggerhead, green, hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles; the threatened Gulf sturgeon; endangered sperm whales, and analyzing the synthesis of the environmental baseline, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the biologi cal opinion of NMFS that implementation of the proposed action described in this biologi cal opinion is not likel y to jeopardize the continued existence of these species.

11 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT (ITS)

Section 9 of the ESA and prot ective regulations issued pursu ant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and th reatened species, re spectively, without a special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Incidental take is

defined as take that is inci dental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. U nder the terms of section 7(b)(4 ) and section 7(o)(2), taking

that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the

RPMs and terms and conditions of the ITS.

Section 7(b)(4)(c) of the ESA specifies that in order to provide an incidental take statement for an endangered or threatened sp ecies of marine mammal, the taking must be authorized under section 101(a )(5) of the MMPA. Since no incidental take of listed marine mammals is expected or has been authorized under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA, no statement on incidental take of enda ngered whales is provided and no take is authorized. Nevertheless, MMS must im mediately notify (within 24 hours, if communication is possible) the NMFS’ Office of Protected Res ources should a take of a

listed marine mammal occur.

Take of Sperm Whales Sperm whales within the action area are like ly to be adversely affected by seismic activities. Seismic activities are likely to di srupt the normal behavior of marine mammals

but measures included in NTL No. 2007-G02 should reduce the impact of that disruption

so that it does not rise above the level of harassment (i.e., injury or mortality is not anticipated). Any vessel collisions with sperm whales are likely to severely harm or kill

the animal but measures included in N TL No. 2007-G04 should reduce the risk of collision with sperm whales to a discountable level. However, NMFS is not including an

incidental take statement for the incidental take of whale species because the take of

marine mammals has not been authorized under section 101(a)(5)( A) of the Marine

99Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and/or its 1994 amendments (See ESA section 7(b)(4)(C)).

On December 26, 2002, the MMS submitted a re quest for 5-year regulations under the MMPA for the taking, by harassment, of sper m whales incidental to the oil and gas industry’s seismic surveys to discover oil and gas deposits offshore in the GOM. NOAA Fisheries published an Advance Notice of Pr oposed Rulemaking regarding the small take authorization on March 3, 2003 (68 FR 9991). Following issuance of such regulations under the MMPA, NMFS will amend this opinion to include any authorized incidental take of sperm whales, as may be appropriate at that time.

Take of Sea Turtles Resulting from Vessel Strikes NMFS expects impacts to sea turtles in the action area as a result of OCS oil and gas leasing activities. Based on st randing records, incidental captures during recreational and commercial fishing operations, scientific surveys, and historical data, the five species of

sea turtles are known to occur in GOM waters in and around the action area. The vessel strike avoidance requirements (NTL No. 2003-G10) will appreciably reduce the numbers of sea turtles that may be incidentally taken from routine offshore vessel operations associated with the proposed action; ho wever, the available information on the relationship between these species and OCS oil and gas activities indicates that sea turtles may be killed or injured by vessel strikes as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the ESA, NM FS anticipates incidental take as follows:

• 119 lethal (2.9 individuals annually, on average) and 238 non-lethal takes (5.9 individuals annually, on average) of loggerhead sea turtles over the 40- year lifetime of the proposed action.

• 10 lethal takes (1 individual every 4 years, on average) and 21 non-lethal takes (1 individual every 1.9 years, on average) of leatherback sea turtles over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed action.

• 13 lethal takes (1 individual every 3 years, on average) and 26 non-lethal takes (1 individual every 1.5 years, on av erage) of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed action.

• 38 lethal takes (1 individual every 1. 1 years, on average) and 76 non-lethal takes (1.9 individuals annually, on averag e) of green sea turtles over the 40- year lifetime of the proposed action.

• 1 lethal and 1 non-lethal take of a hawksbill sea turtle over the 40-year lifetime of the proposed action.

If the actual incidental take exceeds this level, MMS must im mediately reinitiate formal

consultation.

100Takes of Listed Species Resulting from Spilled Oil

NMFS believes that a small number of listed species will experience adverse effects as the result of exposure to a major oil spill or ingestion of accidentally spilled oil over the lifetime of the action. Spilled oil resulting from the proposed action could take up to 42 lethal and 111 non-lethal takes of loggerhead s; 2 lethal and 7 non- lethal takes of a leatherback sea turtles; 9 lethal and 16 non-lethal takes of Ke mp’s ridley sea turtles; 13 lethal and 36 non-lethal take of green sea turtles; 2 lethal takes of Gulf sturgeon; and 11 non-lethal takes of sperm whales over the 40-ye ar lifetime of the proposed lease sales. However, NMFS is not including an incidental take statement for the incidental take of listed species due to oil exposure. Incidental take, as defined at 50 CFR 402.02, refers only to takings that result from an otherw ise lawful activity. The Clean Water Act (33

USC 1251 et seq .) as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 USC 2701 et seq .) prohibits discharges of harmful quantities of oil, as defined at 40 CFR 110.3, into waters of the United States. Therefore, even t hough this biological opinion has considered the effects on listed species by oil spills that may result from the proposed action, those takings that would result from an unlawful activ ity (i.e., oil spills) are not specified in this Incidental Take Statement and have no protec tive coverage under se ction 7(o)(2) of the

ESA.

11.1 Effect of the Take

NMFS believes that the aforementioned level of anticipated take (letha l, or non-lethal) is not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of sperm whales; leatherback, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles; and Gulf sturgeon in the wild by reducing thei r reproduction, numbers, or distribution.

11.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA requires NMFS to issue a statement specifying the impact of any incidental taking to any agency whos e proposed action is found to comply with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and whose proposed action may incidentally take individuals of listed species. It also states that RPMs necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts, and terms and conditions to implement those measures, must be provided and must be followed to minimize those impacts. Only incidental taking by the federal agency or applicant that complies with the specified terms and conditions is authorized.

The RPMs and terms and conditions are spec ified as required by 50 CFR 402.14 (i)(1)(ii) and (iv) to document the in cidental take by the proposed action and to minimize theimpact of that take on sea turtles. These measures and terms and conditions are nondiscretionary, and must be implemented by NM FS in order for the protection of section 7(o)(2) to apply. NMFS has a continuing dut y to regulate the activity covered by this

incidental take statement. If MMS fails to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable te rms, and/or fails to retain oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and condi tions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse.

101NMFS has determined that the following RPMs are necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts of the incidental take of sea turtles from vessel operation.

1. MMS must reduce the potential for sea tur tles to be struck and injured by vessels operating in support of oil and gas de velopment activities in the GOM.

2. MMS must require the monitoring and re porting of any sea turtles struck or observed to have sign of vessel interaction to assess the actual level of incidental take in comparison with the anticipated incidental take.

11.4 Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from liability for take prohibited by section 9 of the ESA, NMFS must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the RPMs

described above. These terms a nd conditions are non-discretionary.

The following terms and conditions implement RPM No. 1.

1. MMS must implement NMFS measures to reduce the risk of accidental vessel strikes with sea turtles by use of its lega l authorities to ensure implementation of, and compliance with NTL No 2007-G04 (APPENDIX A).

The following terms and conditions implement RPM No. 2.

2. MMS must make information available to vessel operators concerning species

information on sea turtles in the GOM a nd reporting of vessel-struck, or injured

and dead animals.

3. MMS must ensure that all ve ssel struck, or injured or d ead turtles with indications of vessel interactions are reported to the Sea Turtle Stranding Network

Coordinator in the nearest coastal state. Any takes of liste d species shall be reported to the NMFS Southeast Regional O ffice within no more than 24 hours of

the incident to : takereport.nmfsser@noaa.gov . If an MMS action is responsible for the injured or dead animals (e.g., becau se of a vessel strike), the MMS shall require the responsible parties to assi st the respective sa lvage and stranding network as appropriate. Report dead or injured protected sp ecies to your local stranding network contacts. A list of sea tu rtle stranding responde rs is available at http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/seaturtleSTSSN.jsp . A list of marine mammal stranding network responders fo r each state is available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/networks.htm

.

4. MMS must submit an annual report to NMFS Southeast Regional Office regarding the reports of vessel-struck sea turtles, and injured and dead sea turtles reported from oil and gas operators. Hardcopies of all annual reports will be submitted to the following address:

102Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources

National Marine Fisheries Service

263 13 th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701

12 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Under Section 20 of the OCSLA, the Secretary shall “. . . conduct such additional studies

to establish environmental information as he deems necessary and shall monitor the human, marine, and coastal environments of such area or region in a manner designed to provide time-series and data trend informa tion which can be used for comparison with any previously collected data for the purpose of identifying any significant changes in the quality and productivity of such environments, for establishing trends in the area studied and monitored, and for designing experiments to identify the causes of such changes.” Through the Environmental Studies Program (ESP), MMS conducts studies designed to provide information on the current status of re sources of concern and notable changes, if any, resulting from OCS Program activities.

Pile Driving

To better understand the cumulative effects of noise from oil and gas construction and development activities on the OCS, MMS should conduct a study to characterize all aspects of noise-producing construction and operation activities such as pile driving during well construction and pl atform installation, and of other common OCS activities. The study should characterize both specific sources of noise from MMS-permitted actions, as well as ambient noise measurem ents on the OCS. Major noise-producing

activities should be iden tified and measurements of noise from these activities should be recorded and reported in a ppropriate units of measurement to estimate the acoustic footprint of the activities, duration, frequency, and relative contribution to ambient noise

levels in the GOM. Methodol ogies of field measurements should be should be coordinated with NMFS personnel. Such data would help quantify the relative contribution of pile driving on ambient noise levels, compare to other known sources, and conduct cumulative impact analyses in the GOM. Following completion of such a study, MMS should hold a joint MMS /NMFS workshop with industry representatives to cooperatively discuss the results of the study and identify any technology- or methodbased recommendations to reduce ambient noise in the marine environment, and any other future actions that may be necessary.

Observer Programs MMS should work cooperatively with NMFS to address existing protected species

observer issues in the GOM. Observers are currently required for geophysical and geological exploration and the explosive rem oval of offshore struct ures. Some current issues involve standard prot ocols passive acoustic monitoring, observer qualifications and training, standard reporting formats, and im provement in communicating with observers companies regarding the intent and protoc ols to be followed for protected species mitigation.

103Marine Debris

MMS should continue to work with NMFS and the Offshore Operators Committee to provide informational materials to the o ffshore oil and gas workers, require annual training, and continue to deve lop best management practices to reduce the release of

debris into the marine environment. MMS should work with NMFS to update the Marine Debris NTL 2003-G11, as appropriate.

Protected Species Workshops On June 15-16, 1999, MMS hosted a Marine Protected Species Workshop in New Orleans, LA. MMS, in concert with appropria te agencies and with assistance in funding by industry where possible, should continue e fforts in supporting work to carry out the recommendations of that workshop panel. MMS should continue its support of research

to determine effects of OCS related activities on protected species, other marine fauna, and the environment, and present the result s at its information transfer meetings.

13 REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION

This concludes formal consultation on th e CMPR fishery. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal cons ultation is required if di scretionary federal agency

involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is author ized by law) and if: (1) The amount or extent of the taking speci fied in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat (when de signated) in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) the identified action is subse quently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat th at was not considered inthe biological opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the

identified action. In instances where the amount or extent of incident al take is exceeded, MMS must immediately request rein itiation of formal consultation.

104LITERATURE CITED

Abele, L. G. and W. Kim. 1986. An illust rated guide to the marine crustaceans of

Florida. Technical Series Vol. 1 Number 1 Part 1. November 1986. Department of Environmental Regulation, St ate of Florida. p. 326.

Adler-Fenchel, H.S. 1980. Acoustically deri ved estimate of the size distribution for a sample of sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus ) in the Western North Atlantic.

Canadian Journal of Fisherie s and Aquatic Sciences 37:2358-2361.

American Fisheries Society (AFS). 1989. Common and scientific names of aquatic

invertebrates from the United States a nd Canada: decapod crustaceans. Special Publication 17, Bethesda, MD. 77 pp.

Aguilar, R., J. Mas and X. Pastor. 1995. Im pact of Spanish swordfish longline fisheries on the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta , population in the western Mediterranean, pp. 1. In : 12th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, February 25-29, 1992, Jekyll Island, Georgia.

Aguirre, A.A., Balazs, G.H., Murakawa, S.K.K., and T.R. Spraker. 1998. Oropharyngeal fibropapillomas in Hawaiian green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ): pathologic and epidemologic perspectives. In Epperly, S.P., and J. Braun (compilers). Proceedings of the Seve nteenth Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. U.S. Department of Commerce: NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC415. 294 pp.

Ashford, J.R., P.S. Rubilar, and A.S. Mart in. 1996. Interactions between cetaceans and longline fishery operations around Sout h Georgia. Marine Mammal Science

12:452–457.

Balazs, G.H. 1982. Growth rates of immature green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago, pp. 117-125. In Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Balazs, G.H. 1983. Recovery records of adult green turtles observed or originally tagged at French Frigate Shoals, northwest ern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Technical

Memorandum. NMFS-SWFC.

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debr is on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. In Shomura, R.S. and H.O. Yoshida (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, November 26-29, 1984. Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SWFC-54:387-429.

Balazs, G.H. and M. Chaloupka. 2003. Thirty year recovery trend in the once depleted Hawaiian green turtle stock. Bi ological Conservation, August.

105Baumgartner, M.F., K.D. Mullin, L.N. May, and T.D. Leming. 2001. Cetacean habitats

in the northern Gu lf of Mexico. Fish ery Bulletin 99:219-239.

Bedinger, C. A. Jr., and C. P. Nulton. 1982. An alysis of environmental and tar samples

from the nearshore south Texas area afte r oiling from the Ixtoc-1 blowout, Bull.

Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:166–171.

Berg, J. J. 2004. Population Assessment of th e Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon in the Yellow River, Florida. Masters Thesis, Univ. of FL. 68 pp.

Berzin, A.A. 1971. “Kashalot [The sperm whale]”. Izdat. “Pischevaya Promyschelennost.” Moscow. English translation, 1972, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 394 pp.

Best, P.B. 1979. Social or ganization in sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus . In: Winn and Olla, pp. 227-89.

Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecol ogy and nutrition of sea turtles. In : Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Tu rtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Bolten, A.B., J.A. Wetheral, G.H. Balazs and S. G. Pooley (compilers). 1996. Status of

marine turtles in the Pacific Ocean relevant to incidental take in the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fisheries. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC.

Booth, P.N., and B.J. Presley. 1989. Trends in sediment trace element concentration around six petroleum drilling platforms in th e northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In: Englehardt, F.R., J.P. Ray, and A.H. G illam, Eds. Drilling Wastes. New York: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., pp. 3-20.

Boulon, R., Jr. 2000. Trends in sea turtle strandings, U.S. Virgin Islands: 1982 to 1997. U.S. Department of Commer ce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC.

Brongersma, L. 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Zool. Verhand. Leiden 121, 318 pp.

Burks, C., Mullin, K.D., Swartz, S.L., and A. Martinez. Cruise Results, NOAA ship Gorgon Gunter Cruise GU-01-01(11), 6 Fe bruary-3 April 2001, Marine Mammal Survey of Puerto Rico and theVirgin Is lands and a Study of Sperm Whales in the

Southeastern Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC462, 58 p.

Caldwell, D.K. and A. Carr. 1957. Status of the sea turtle fishery in Florida.

Transactions of the 22nd North Ameri can Wildlife Conference, March 4-7, 1957, pp. 457-463.

Carr, A. 1963. Pan specific reproductive convergence in Lepidochelys kempii . Ergebn.

Biol. 26:298-303.

106Carr, A. 1983. All the way down upon th e Suwannee River. Audubon Magazine 85:78-

101.

Carr, A. 1984. So Excellent a Fishe. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.

Carr, S.H., F. Tatman, and F.A. Chapman. 1996. Observations on the natural history of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Vladykov 1955) in the Suwannee River, southeastern United St ates. Ecology of Fres hwater Fish 5:

169-174.

Castroviejo, J., J.B. Juste, J.P. Del Val, R. Castelo, and R. Gil. 1994. Diversity and status of sea turtle species in the Gulf of Guinea islands Biodiversity and

Conservation 3: 828-836.

Chan, E.H. and H.C. Liew. 1996. Decline of the leatherback population in Terengganu, Malyasia, 1956-1995. Chelonian Conser vation and Biology 2(2):196-203.

Chapman, F.A., S.F. O'Keefe, and D.E. Campton. 1993. Establishment of parameters

critical for the culture and commerciali zation of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi . Final Report, NOAA, St . Petersburg, Florida.

Chevalier, J., X. Desbois, and M. Gir ondot. 1999. The reason for the decline of leatherback turtles ( Demochelys coriacea ) in French Guiana: a hypothesis. Pp.

79-88 In Miaud, C. and R. Guytant (eds.), Current Studies in Herpetology, Proceedings of the ninth ordinary gene ral meeting of the Societas Europea Herpetologica, August 25-29, 1998. Le Bourget du Lac, France.

Clarke, R. 1956. Sperm whales of th e Azores. Discovery Rep. 28, 237-298.

Clarke M.R. 1962. Significance of ce phalopod beaks. Nature 193:560-561.

Clarke, M.R. 1976. Observation on sperm wh ale diving. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK,

56:809-810.

Clugston, J.P., Foster, A.M., and S.H. Carr. 1995. Gulf sturgeon, Acipenser onyrinchus

desotoi , in the Suwannee River, Florida, US A. Proc. Of International Symposium on Sturgeons. Moscow, Russia. Eds: A. D. Gershanovich and T.I.J. Smith. Sept. 6-11, 1993. 370 pp.

Craft, N.M., B. Russell, and S. Travis. 2001. Identification of Gulf sturgeon spawning habitats and migratory patte rns in the Yellow and Escambia River systems. Final Report to the Florida Marine Research Institute, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 19 pp.

107Collard, S. 1990. Leatherback turtles feedi ng near a water mass boundary in the eastern

Gulf of Mexico. Marine Tu rtle Newsletter 50:12-14.

Cranford, T.W. 1992. Directional asymmetr y in the odontocete forehead. American Zoologist 32(5):104

Davis, R.W., and G.S. Fargion, eds. 1996. Distribution and abundance of cetaceans in

the north-central and western Gulf of Mexico: Final Report. Volume II: Technical Report. OCS Study MMS 96-0027. Prepared by the Texas Institute of Oceanography and the National Marine Fish eries Service. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Mgmt. Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Refion, New Orleans, LA. 357 pp.

Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, a nd B. Würsig, eds. 2000a. Cetaceans, Sea Turtles, and

Seabirds in the Northern Gulf of Me xico: Distribution, Abundance and Habitat

Associations. Volume I: Executiv e Summary. Prepared by Texas A&M University at Galveston and the Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geologic Survey, Biological Resources Division,

USGS/BRD/CR - 1999-0006 and Minerals Mana gement Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-002: 27 pp.

Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, a nd B. Würsig, eds. 2000b. Ce taceans, Sea Turtles, and

Seabirds in the Northern Gulf of Me xico: Distribution, Abundance and Habitat Associations. Volume II: Executive Summary. Prepared by Texas A&M University at Galveston and the Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geologic Survey, Biological Resources Division,

USGS/BRD/CR-1999-0006 and Mine rals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-003: 346 pp.

Davis, R.W., J.G. Ortega-Ortiz , C.A. Ribie, W.E. Evans, D. C. Biggs, P.H. Ressler, R.B. Cady, R.L. Leben, K.D. Mullin, and B. Wü rsig. 2002. Cetacean habitat in the

northern Gulf of Mexico. Deep-Sea Research 49:121-142.

Diez, C. E. and R.P. van Dam. 2006. Hawk sbill turtle nesting beach habitat restoration on Mona Island, Puerto Rico: Research report for 2005.

Dodd, C.K. 1981. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (L.), in Florida: historic review and present trends . Brimleyana 7: 39-54.

Dodd, C.K. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta

caretta (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service Biological Report, 88- 14, 1988. 110 pp.

Doughty, R.W. 1984. Sea turtles in Texas: A forgotten commerce. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 88:43-70.

108Dufault S, Whitehead H. 1995. An assessment of changes with time in the marking patterns used for photoidentifica tion of individual sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus . Marine mammal Science 11(3):335-344.

Dufault S, Whitehead H, Dillon M. 1999. An examination of the current knowledge on the stock structure of sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus ) worldwide. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 1:1-10.

Dutton, P.H. 2003. Molecular ecology of Chelonia mydas in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

In : Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Sy mposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, April 4-7, 2002. Miami, Florida.

Dutton, P.H., B.W. Bowen, D.W. Owens, A. Barragán, and S.K. Davis. 1999. Global phylogeography of the leatherback turtles ( Dermochelys coriacea ). Journal of Zoology, London 248:397-409.

Dwyer, K.L., C.E. Ryder, and R. Prescott. 2002. Anthropogenic mort ality of leatherback

sea turtles in Massachusetts waters. Po ster presentation for the 2002 Northeast Stranding Network Symposium.

Eckert, S.A. 1997. Distant fisheries implicated in the loss of the world’s largest leatherback nesting.

Eckert, S.A. 1999. Global distribution of juve nile leatherback turtles. Hubbs Sea World Research Institute Technical Report 99-294.

Eckert, S.A. and J. Lien. 1999. Recommendati ons for eliminating incidental capture and mortality of leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea , by commercial fisheries in Trinidad and Tobago. A report to the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation network (WIDECAST). Hubbs-Sea World re search Institute Technical Report No. 2000-310. 7 pp.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. Marine turtles of th e Indian River lagoon system. Florida Sci. 46(3/4):337-346.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1979. A survey of marine tu rtle nesting at Kenne dy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, North Brev ard County, Florida, 1-122. Unpublished report to the Division of Marine Fisher ies, St. Petersburg, Florida, Florida Department of Natural Resources.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status Report of the Loggerhead Turtle. Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina , H. Reichart, and R. Witham (Eds.). Proceedings of the Second Western A tlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-226, pp. 122-139.

109Erhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot . 2003. Loggerhead Turtles in the Atlantic Ocean : Geographic Distribution, Abundance, and Population Status. Pages 157- 174 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witheringt on (editors). Loggerh ead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Ehrhart, L.M. and B.E. Witherington. 1992. Green turtle. In Moler, P.E. (ed.). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles. University Presses of Florida, pp 90-94.

Epperly, S.P. and W.G. Teas. 2002. Turtle excluder devices: Are the escape openings large enough? Fisher y Bulletin 100:466-474.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995a . Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North

Carolina inshore waters. Fi shery Bulletin 93:254-261.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995b. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters. Conservation Biology 9: 384-394.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A. J. Chester, F.A. Cr oss, J. Merriner, and P.A. Tester. 1995c.

Winter distribution of sea turtles in th e vicinity of Cape Hatteras and their

interactions with the summer flounder tr awl fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science 56(2): 519-540.

Epperly, S., L. Avens, L. Garrison, T. Henw ood, W. Hoggard, J. Mitchell, J. Nance, J. Poffenberger, C. Sasso, E. Scott-Denton, and C. Yeung. 2002. Analysis of sea turtle bycatch in the commercial shrimp i ndustry of southeast U.S. waters and the ulf. U.S. Department of Comm erce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-490. 88 pp.

Ernst, L.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Tur tles of the United Stat es. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky.

Foster, A.M. 1993. Moveme nt of Gulf sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi , in the Suwannee River, Florida. M.S. Thesis, Un iversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 131

pp.

Foster, A.M. and J.P. Clugston. 1997. S easonal migration of Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:302-

308.

Fox, D.A. and J.E. Hightower. 1998. Gulf sturgeon estuarine and nearshore marine habitat use in Choctawhatchee Bay, Florid a. Annual Report for 1998 to the National

Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Service. Panama City, Florida. 29 pp.

110Fox, D.A., J.E. Hightower, and F.M. Pa rauka. 2000. Gulf Sturgeon, Spawning Migration and Habitat in the Choctawhat chee River System, Alabama-Florida.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:811-826.

Fox, D., Hightower, J. and F. Parauka 2002. Estuarine and nearshore marine habitat use by gulf sturgeon from the Choctawhatch ee River system, Florida. American Fisheries Society Symposium 28:111-126

FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2000. Physical and ecological factors influencing sea turtle entrainment at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. 1976-1998.

FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2002. Annual environmental operating report 2001. Juno Beach, Florida.

Frazer, N.B. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas , and loggerhead, Caretta caretta , turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985:73-79.

Frazer, N.B., C.J. Limpus, and J.L. Greene. 1994. Growth and age at maturity of Queensland loggerheads. U.S. Depa rtment of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFSC-351:42-45.

Fritts, T.H. 1982. Plastic bags in the intes tinal tract of leatherback marine turtles. Herpetological Re view 13(3):72-73.

Fritts, T.H., W. Hoffman, and M.A. McGeh ee. 1983. The distribution and abundance of

marine turtles in the Gulf of Mexico and nearby Atlantic waters. Journal of Herpetology 17:327-344.

Fritts, T. H., and M. A. McGehee. 1982. E ffects of petroleum on the development and survival of marine turtle embryos . Contract No. 14- 16-0009-80-946, FWS/OBS82/37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Gales, R.S. 1982. Effects of noise of offshor e oil and gas operations on marine mammals - an introductory assessment. Technical Report 844. Navy Oceans Systems Center, San Diego, Ca.

Girondot, M. 2002. Density-dependent nest destruction and populatio n fluctuations of

Guianan leatherback turtles. Animal Conservation 5:75-84.

Gladys Porter Zoo. 2005. Report on the Me xico/United States of America Population Restoration Project for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidocheyls kempii, on the coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico – 2005. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior.

111Goff, G.P. and J. Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea , in cold

water off Newfoundland and Labrador. Ca nadian Field Naturalist 102(1):1-5.

Goold, J.C. and S.E. Jones. 1995. Time a nd frequency domain characteristics of sperm

whale Clicks. Journal of the Acous tical Society of America 98:1279-1291.

Gordon, J.C.D. 1987. Behaviour and ecology of sperm whales off Sri Lanka. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, England.

Gordon, J., R. Leaper, F.G. Hartley, and O. Chappell. 1992. Effects of whale watching

vessels on the surface and underwater acous tic behavior of sperm whales off Kaikoura, New Zealand. Science and Re search Series No. 52, Department of Conservation, PO Box 10-240, Wellington, New Zealand.

Graff, D. 1995. Nesting and hunting survey of the turtles of the island of São Tomé. Progress Report July 1995, ECOFAC Com ponente de São Tomé e Príncipe, 33

pp.

Guseman, J.L. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1992. Ecological geography of Western Atlantic loggerheads and green turtles: evid ence from remote tag recoveries. In Salmon M. and J. Wyneken (compilers), Proceed ings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conserva tion, NOAA Technica l Memorandum NMFSSEFC-302. 50 pp.

Hatase, H., M. Kinoshita, T. Bando, N. Kamezak i, K. Sato, Y. Matsuzawa, K. Goto, K. Omuta, Y. Nakashima, H. Takeshita, and W. Sakamoto. 2002. Population structure of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta , nesting in Japan: Bottlenecks on the Pacific population. Marine Biology 141:299-305.

Hays, G. C., J. S. Ashworth, M. J. Barnsley, A. C. Broderick, D. R. Emery, B. J. Godley, A. Henwood, and E. L. Jones. 2001. The importance of sand albedo for the

thermal conditions on sea turtle nesting beaches. Oikos 93(1): 87–94.

Hayes, G.C., J.D.R. Houghton, C. Isaacs, R. S. King, C. Lloyd and P. Lovell. 2004. First records of oceanic dive prof iles for leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea

, indicate behavioural plasticity associat ed with long-distance migration. Animal

Behaviour 67:733-743.

Henwood, T.A. and L.H. Ogren. 1987. Distribu tion and migrations of immature Kemp’s ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ) and green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) off Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Northeast Gulf Sci. 9:153-159.

Heppell, S.S., L.B. Crowder, D.T. Crous e, S.P. Epperly, and N.B. Frazer. 2003. Population models for Atlantic logger heads: past, present, and future. In : Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (eds.). Smithsonian Books, Washington. pp 255-273.

112Herbst, L.H. 1994. Fibropapillomatosis in marine turtles. Annual Review of Fish

Diseases 4:389-425.

Hildebrand, H.H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la tortuga marina “lora” Lepidochelys kempii (Garman), en la costa occide ntal del Golfo de Mexico. Ciencia Mexicana 22(4): 105-112.

Hildebrand, H.H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea tur tle populations in the

Western Gulf of Mexico. In Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.), Bi ology and Conservation of

Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institut ion Press, Washington D.C. pp. 447-453.

Hilterman, M.L. and E. Goverse. 2003. As pects of Nesting and Nest Success of the Leatherback Turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ) in Suriname, 2002. Guinas Forests and Environmental Conservation Project (GFECP). Technical Report World Wildlife Fund Guinas, Biotopic Foundation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 31p.

Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). Biological Report 97(1) , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 120 pp.

Huff, J.A. 1975. Life history of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus

desotoi , in the Suwannee River, Florida. Marine Resources Pub. No. 16. 32 pp.

Jacobson, E.R. 1990. An update on green tu rtle fibropapilloma. Marine Turtle

Newsletter 49:7-8.

Jacobson, E.R., S.B. Simpson, Jr., and J.P. Sundberg. 1991. Fibropapillomas in green

turtles. In Balazs, G.H. and S.G. Pooley (eds.) , Research Plan for Marine Turtle Fibropapilloma, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SWFSC-156:99-100.

Johnson, S.A. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1994. Nest-s ite fidelity of the Florida green turtle. In Schroeder, B.A. and B.E. Witherington (com pilers), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biol ogy and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341. 83 pp.

Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick, and R.A. Byles. 1987. Aspects of the biology of Virginia's sea turtles: 1979-1986. Virgin ia J. Sci. 38(4):329-336.

Kennicutt II, M.C., Ed. 1995. Gulf of Mexico offshore operations monitoring equipment, Phase I: Sublethal responses to contaminant exposure, final report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. OCS Study MMS 95-0045. 709 pp.

Kasuya, T. 1991. Density dependent growth in North Pacific sperm whales. Marine

Mammal Science 7:230-257.

113Kasuya T. and T. Miyashita. 988. Distribu tion of sperm whale stocks in the North Pacific. Sci Rep Whales Res Inst 39:31-75.

Lageux, C.J., C. Campbell, L.H. Herbst , A.R. Knowlton, and B. Weigle. 1998. Demography of marine turtles harves ted by Miskitu Indians of Atlantic Nicaragua. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-SEFSC.

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships and whales. Ma rine Mammal Science 17:35-75.

Lambertsen RH, Kohn BA, Sundberg JP, Buergelt CD. 1987. Gential papillomatosis in sperm whale bulls. Journal of W ildlife Diseases 23(3): 361-367.

Lewison, R.L., S.A. Freeman, and L.B. Crowder. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and

leatherback sea turtles. Ecological Letters 7:221-231.

Limpus, C.J. and D.J. Limpus. 2003. Loggerh ead turtles in the equatorial Pacific and southern Pacific Ocean: A species in decline. In : Bolten, A.B., and B.E. Witherington (eds.), Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution.

Loehefener, R. R., W. Hoggard, C. L. R oden, K. D. Mullin, and C. M. Rogers. 1989. Petroleum structures and the distribution of sea turtles. In: Proc. Spring Ternary Gulf of Mexico Studies Meeting, Mi nerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, New Orleans, La

Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossa rt, and D.M. Hudson. 1995. Physiologic and clinicopathologic effects of crude oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Arch. Environ.

Contam. Toxicol. 28:417-422.

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on

sea turtle survival. In : Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 387-409.

Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia (1985):449-456.

Lutz, P. L. 1989. Methods for determining th e toxicity of oil and dispersants to sea turtles. In: Oil and Dispersant Toxicity Testing: Proceedings of a Workshop on Technical Specifications Held in New Orleans, La., T. W. Duke and G. Petrazzuolo, eds. Prepared under MMS contract 14-12-0001-30447, OCS Study MMS 89-0042, pp. 97–101.

114Peter L. Lutz, John A. Musick and Jeanette Wyneken (eds.). 2003. The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Mackay, A.L., and J.L. Rebholz. 1996. Sea turtle activity survey on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (1992-1994). In Keinath, J.A., D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick, and B.A. Bell (compilers). Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-387:178-

181.

Madsen, P.T., B. Møhl, B.K. Nielsen, and M. Wahlberg. 2002. Male sperm whale behavior during exposures to distant se ismic survey pulses. Aquatic Mammals

28:231-240.

Marcano, L.A. and J.J. Alio-M. 2000. Incident al capture of sea turtles by the industrial shrimping fleet off northwestern Venezu ela. U.S. Department of Commerce,

NOAA Technical Memo randum NMFS-SEFSC.

Margaritoulis, D., R. Argano, I. Baran, F. Be ntivegna, M.N. Bradai, J.A. Camiñas, P. Casale, G. De Metrio, A. Demetropoulos , G. Gerosa, B.J. Godley, D.A. Haddoud, J. Houghton, L. Laurent, and B. Lazar. 2003. Loggerhead Turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: Present Knowledge and Conservation Perspectives. Pages 175-198 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors).

Márquez, R. 1990. FAO Species Catalogue, Vol. 11. Sea turtles of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of s ea turtle species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, 125. 81 pp.

Maze-Foley, K. and K. Mullin. 2006. Cetacean s of the oceanic north ern Gulf of Mexico: Distributions, group sizes and interspecific associations. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8(2):203–213.

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhita, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000. Marine seismic surveys: analysis and propagation of air-gun si gnals; and effects of air-gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. A Report Prepared for the Australian Production Exploration Asso ciation. Project CMST 163, Report R99- 15. 198 pp.

Menzel, R.W. 1971. Checklist of the Marine Fauna and Flora of the Apalachee Bay and the St. George Sound Area. Third Ed ition. The Department of Oceanography, Florida State University. Ta llahassee, Florida. 126 pp.

Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting act ivity in the state of Florida. Florida Marine Research Publications, No. 52.

115Milton, S.L., S. Leone-Kabler, A.A. Schulman, and P.L. Lutz. 1994. Effects of Hurricane Andrew on the sea turtle nesting beaches of South Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science, 54(3):974-981.

Minerals Management Service. 2006. Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Activities: 2007- 2012 Western and Central Planning Areas . MMS Gulf of Mexico Region Biological Assessment. April 2006, 149 pp.

Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, and M.L. Lenhardt. 1994. Auditory behavior of the loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology an d Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-351, p. 89.

Mrosovsky, N. 1981. Plastic jellyfish. Marine Turtle Newsletter 17: 5-6.

Mullin, K.D. 2002. Personal Communication to Kyle Baker. National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula Laboratory. Pascagoula, MS.

Mullin, K.D. and G.L. Fulling. 2003. Abundance of cetaceans in the oceanic northern Gulf of Mexico, 1996-2001. Mari ne Mammal Science 20(4):787-807.

Mullin, K.D., and W. Hoggard. 2000. Visual surveys of cetaceans and sea turtles from aircraft and ships, chapter 4. In: R.W. Davis, W.E. Evans, and B. Würsig (EDS.), Cetaceans, Sea Turtles and Birds in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution,

Abundnce and Habitat Associations. Volume II: Technical Report. Prepared by Texas A&M University at Galveston and the National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologic Survey, Biological Resources Division, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-005 and Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orl eans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2000-003.

Mullins, J., H. Whitehead, and L.S. Weilgart. 1988. Behavior and vocalizations of two single sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus off Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1736-1743.

Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aeri al and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in the Southeast region, U. S. Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service; NMFS C ontract No. NA83-GA-C-00021. 73 pp.

Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habita t utilization in juve nile sea turtles. In Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 137-163.

Neff, J.M. 2002. Bioaccumulation in Marine Organisms. Effect of contaminants from oil well produced water. Elsevi er Science Publ. Amsterdam. 452pp.

116Neff, J.M., T.C. Sauer, and N. Maciolek. 1989. Fate and effects of produced water discharges in nearshore marine waters . Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

NMFS. 1995. Endangered Species Act sect ion 7 consultation on United States Coast Guard vessel and aircraft activities along th e Atlantic coast. Biological Opinion. September 15.

NMFS. 1996. Endangered Species Act s ection 7 consultation on reinitiation of

consultation on United States Coast Guar d Vessel and Aircraft Activities along

the Atlantic Coast. Biol ogical Opinion. July 22.

NMFS. 1997a. Endangered Species Act sect ion 7 consultation on Navy activities off the

southeastern United States along the Atlantic Coast. Biological Opinion. May 15.

NMFS. 1997b. Endangered Species Act sect ion 7 consultation on the continued hopper dredging of channels and borrow areas in the southeastern United States. Biological Opinion. September 25.

NMFS. 1998. Endangered Species Act sect ion 7 consultation on COE permits to KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Corporation for explos ive rig removals off of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Draft Bi ological Opinion. September 22.

NMFS. 2001a. Stock assessments of logge rhead and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the pelagic longline fisher y on the loggerhead and leatherback sea

turtles of the Western North Atlantic . U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-455.

NMFS. 2001b. Endangered Species Act sect ion 7 consultation on the reinitiation of consultation on the Atlantic highly migrat ory species fishery management plan

and its associated fisheries. Biological Opinion. June 14.

NMFS. 2002a. Endangered Species Act secti on 7 consultation on shrimp trawling in the

southeastern United States under the sea turtle conser vation regulations and as managed by the fishery management plans for shrimp in the South Atlantic and

the Gulf of Mexico. Biol ogical Opinion, December 2.

NMFS. 2002a. Endangered Species Act secti on 7 consultation on the proposed Gulf of

Mexico outer continental shelf lease sale184. Biological Opinion. July 11.

NMFS. 2002b. Endangered Species Act sect ion 7consultation on proposed Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf multi-lease sales (185, 187, 190, 192, 194, 196, 198, 200, 201). Biological Opinion. November 29.

NMFS. 2003a. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the continued operation of Atlantic shark fisheries (c ommercial shark botto m longline and drift

117gillnet fisheries and recreational shark fisheries) under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP) and the Proposed

Rule for Draft Amendment 1 to the HM S FMP. Biological Opinion. July 2003.

NMFS. 2003b. Endangered Species Act secti on 7 consultation on dredging of Gulf of Mexico Navigation Channels and Sand Mining (“Borrow”) Areas Using Hopper Dredges by COE Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, and Jacksonville Districts. Biological Opinion, November.

NMFS. 2003c. Endangered Species Act secti on 7 consultation on Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales 189 and 197. Biological Opinion. August

30.

NMFS. 2004a. Endangered Species Act s ection 7 consultation on proposed regulatory amendments to the FMP for the pelagic fi sheries of the western Pacific region. Biological opinion. February 23.

NMFS. 2004b. Endangered Species Act s ection 7 reinitiation consultation on the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery for highly migratory species. Biological Opinion.

June 1.

NMFS. 2004c. Endangered Species Act secti on 7 consultation on the Eglin Gulf test and training range. Biologi cal opinion. October 20.

NMFS. 2004b. Endangered Species Act s ection 7 consultation on Naval explosive ordnance disposal training school of ex cellence. Biological opinion. October 25.

NMFS. 2005a. Endangered Species Act sect ion 7 consultation on the precision strike weapons tests five-year plan. Biological opinion. March 14.

NMFS. 2005b. Endangered Species Act secti on 7 consultation on the Santa Rosa Island mission utilization plan. Biological opinion. October 12.

NMFS. 2005c. Endangered Species Act sect ion 7 consultation on the GOM reef fish fishery management plan (RFFMP) and proposed amendment 23. February 12.

NMFS and USFWS. 1991a. Recovery plan fo r U.S. Populations of Loggerhead Turtle.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.

NMFS and USFWS. 1991b. Recovery Plan fo r U.S. Populations of Atlantic Green

Turtle. National Marine Fisher ies Service, Washington, D.C.

NMFS and USFWS. 1992. Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexic o. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.

118NMFS and USFWS. 1993. Recovery Plan for Hawksbill Sea Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington.

NMFS and USFWS. 1995. Status reviews fo r sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine Fi sheries Service, Silver Spring, Md.

NMFS and USFWS. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Leatherback Turtle. Prepared by the Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team.

NRC (National Research Council, Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation). 1990.

Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

Norris, K.S., and G.W. Harvey. 1972. A theory for the function of the spermaceti organ of the sperm whale ( Physeter catodon L.). In Galler, S. R., K. Schmidt-Koenig, G. J. Jacobs, and R. E. Belleville, eds., An imal orientation and navigation, U.S. Natl. Aeronautics and Space Admin., Washington, D.C., pp. 397-417.

Norris and Møhl. 1983. Can odontocetes debilitate prey with sound? American Naturalist 122(1):85-104.

Odell DK. 1992. Sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ), family Physeteridae, order Cetacea. In: Humphrey SR, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida.

Gainesville: Univ. Press Fla

.

Odenkirk, J.S. 1989. Movements of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon in the Apalachicola River, Florida. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 43:230-238.

Ogren, L.H. 1988. Biology and Ecology of Sea Turtles. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries, Panama City Laboratory. September 7.

Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles: Preliminary Results from the 1984-1987 Surveys. In Caillouet, C.W., Jr. and A.M. Landry, Jr. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, C onservation and Management. Texas A&M University Sea Grant College Program, Galveston. TAMU-SG-89-105.

O'Hara, J. and J.R. Wilcox. 1990. Avoida nce responses of loggerhead turtles, Caretta

caretta , to low frequency s ound. Copeia; (1990) 2:564-567.

Owens, D. 1983. Oil and sea turtles in th e Gulf of Mexico: a proposal to study the problem. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program. WS/OBS83/03, p. 34-39.

119Papastavrou, Y., S.C. Smith, and H. Whitc head. 1989. Diving beba viour of the sperm whale, Phvseter macracephalus , off the Galapagos Islands, Canadian Journal of Zoology 7: 839-846.

Perry, S.L., D.P. DeMaster, and G.K. Silber . 1999. The Great Whales: History and Status of Six Species Listed as Endangered unde r the U.S. Endangered Species Act fo 1973. Marine Fisheries Review 61(1).

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1969. Sea turtles of the Gu ianas. Bull. Fla. Stat e Mus. 13(2):1-139.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982. Nesti ng of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea , in Pacific, Mexico, with a new estimate of the world population status. Copeia 1982:

741-747.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1996. Are leatherbacks really threatened with extinction? Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2): 303-305.

Putrawidjaja, M. 2000. Marine turtles in Iranian Jaya, Indonesia. Marine Turtle

Newsletter 90:8-10.

Reeves, R. R., and H. Whitehead. 1997. Status of the sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus , in Canada. Canadian Fi eld Naturalist 111(2):293-307.

Reichart, H., L. Kelle, L. Laurant, H.L. va n de Lande, R. Archer, R. Charles and R. Lieveld. 2001. Regional Sea Turtle Cons ervation Program and Action Plan for the Guiana (K.L. Eckert and M. Fontaine , eds.). World Wildlife Fund - Guianas

Forests and Environmental Conservati on Project. Paramaribo. WWF technical report GFECP #10.

Renaud, M.L. 1995. Movements and submergen ce patterns of Kemp's ridley turtles ( Lepidochelys kempii ). Journal of Herpetology 29:370-374.

Renaud, M.L. 2001. Sea turtles of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Marine Protected Species Workshop, June 1999. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, IN TERMAR, Herndon, Virginia. OCS Report MMS 2001-090. 23 pp.

Rhodin, A.G.J. 1985. Comparative chrondro- osseous development and growth of marine turtles. Copeia 1985:752-771.

Richardson, W.J., Greene, C.R., Mame, C.I. & Thomson, D.H. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press Inc, San Diego, USA.

Roden, C.L. and K.D. Mullin. 2000. Applicat ion of Sperm Whale Research Techniques

in the Northern Gulf of Mexico - A Pilot Study. Report of NOAA Ship Gordon

Gunter Cruise 009.

120Ross, J.P. 1979. Historical decline of logge rhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles. In : Bjorndal, K.A. (editor), Biology and Cons ervation of Sea Turtles. pp. 189-195.

Smithsonian Institution Pr ess, Washington, D.C. 1995.

Salmon, M., and J. Wyneken. 1990. Orientation by Swimming Sea Turtles: Role of Photic Intensity Differences While Nearshore. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology an d Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum SEFSC-278. pp: 107-108.

Sarti, L., S. Eckert, and N.T. Garcia. 1998. Estimation of nesti ng population size of the

leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea , in the Mexican Pacific during the 1997-1998 nesting season. Final contract report to NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. La Jolla, California.

Sarti, L., S. Eckert, P. Dutton, A. Barragan, and N. Garcia. 2000. The current situation of the leatherback population on the Pacific coast of Mexi co and Central America, abundance and distribution of the nestings: An update, pp.85-87. In : Proceedings of the 19th Annual Symposium on Sea Tu rtle Conservation and Biology, March 2-6, 1999, South Padre Island, Texas.

Schmid, J.R. and W.N. Witzell. 1997. Age a nd growth of wild Kemp's ridley turtles ( Lepidochelys kempii ): Cumulative results of ta gging studies in Florida.

Chelonian Conservati on and Biology 2:532-537.

Schroeder, B.A., and A.M. Foley. 1995. Popul ation studies of marine turtles in Florida Bay. In Richardson, J.I. and T. H. Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Workshop on Sea Tur tle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-361. 117 pp.

Schultz, J.P. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zoologische Verhandelingen (Leiden), Number 143: 172 pp.

Seminoff, J.A. 2002. Global st atus of the green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ): A summary of the 2001 stock assessment for the IUCN Red List Programme. Presented at the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management Workshop, Honolulu, Hawaii, February 5-8, 2002.

Shaver, D.J. 1991. Feeding ecology of wild a nd head-started Kemp's ridley sea turtles in south Texas waters. Journal of Herpetology 23, 1991.

Shaver, D.J. 1994. Relative abundance, temporal patterns, and growth of sea turtles at the Mansfield Channel, Texas. Journal of Herpetology 28:491-497.

121Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seas onal distributions and abundance of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in wa ters of the northeastern United States. Herpetolological Monographs 6:43-67.

Slack, W.T., S.T. Ross, R.J. Heise, and J.A. Ewing, III. 1999. Movement and habitat use of the Gulf sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi ) in the Pascagoula drainage of Mississippi: year II. Mississippi Departme nt of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks,

and Museum of Natural Science. Funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Project No. E-1, Segment 13. 42 pp.

Smith, T.I.J. 1985. The fishery, biology, and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus , in North America. Environm ental Biology of Fishes 14:

61-72.

Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V.

Paladino. 1996. Worldwid e population decline of Dermochelys coriacea : are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chel onian Conservation and Biology 2(2):209-

222.

Spotila, J.R., R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyerma rk, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 2000.

Pacific leatherback turtles f ace extinction. Nature 405:529-530.

Stabile, J., J.R. Waldman, F. Parauka, a nd I. Wirgin. 1996. Stock structure and homing fidelity in Gulf of Mexico sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi ) based on restriction fragment length polymorphism and sequence analyses of mitochondrial

DNA. Genetics 144:767-775.

Suarez, A. 1999. Preliminary data on sea turtle harvest in the Kai Archipelago, Indonesia. Abstract appears in the 2n d ASEAN Symposium and Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, held from July 15-17, 1999, in Sabah Malyasia.

Suarez, A., P.H. Dutton, and J. Bakarbessy. 2000. Leatherback ( Demochelys coriacea ) Nesting in the North Vogelkop co ast of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. In Kalb, H. and T. Wibbels (compilers), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservati on, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-361. 117 pp.

Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1999. Recent adva nces in life history of Gulf of Mexico

sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi in the Suwannee River, Florida, U.S.A.: a synopsis. J. Appl. Ichth. 15:116 - 128.

Teas, W.G. 1994. Marine turtle strandi ng trends, 1986-1993. Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar Compilers, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biol ogy and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351, p. 293-295.

122TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 1998. An Assessment of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ) and loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic . U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409. 96 pp.

TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA T echnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-444. 115 pp.

Troëng, S. and E. Rankin. 2004. Long-term c onservation efforts contribute to positive green turtle Chelonia mydas nesting trend at Tortuguer o, Costa Rica. Biological

Conservation.

Tillman, M. 2000. Internal memorandum, dated July 18, 2000, from M. Tillman (NMFS

Southwest Fisheries Scien ce Center) to R. McInnis (NMFS Southwest Regional Office).

Urick, R. J. 1972. Noise signature of an aircraft in level flight over a hydrophone in the

sea. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 52:993-999.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. 2004. Geological and geophysical exploration for mineral res ources on the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf—final programmatic envi ronmental assessment. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2004-054. 466 pp.

USEPA. 1993a. Development document for ef fluent limitation guidelines and standards for the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction point source category.

EPA 821-R-93-003.

USEPA. 1993b. Supplemental information for effluent limitation guidelines and new source performance standards for the o ffshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction point source category (49 CFR 435); Office of Water, Washington, DC. Also supportive documents produced by the Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. Economic im pact analysis of proposed effluent limitation guidelines and standards for th e offshore oil and gas industry. Prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc. EPA 440/2-91-001. Regulation published in the Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 41, pages 12,453-12,512 (March 4, 1993).

USEPA. 1999. Ecological Condition of Estu aries in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA 620-R-98-

004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Envir onmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida.

123USFWS, GSMFC, and NMFS. 1995. U.S. Gu lf sturgeon Recovery /Management Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp.

USFWS and NMFS. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ). National Marine Fi sheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Van Vleet, T., and G. G. Pauly. 1987. Charact erization of oil residues scraped from

stranded sea turtles from the Gulf of Mexico. Carib. J. Sci. 23: 77.

Van Vleet, E. S., W. M. Sacke tt, S. B. Reinhardt, and M. E. Mangini. 1984. Distribution, sources, and fates of floating oil residues in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Poll.

Bull. 15:106–110.

Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. van Vleet, and G. Bossart. 1986. The effects of oil on marine turtles. Final Report, Vol. 2. Prepared for Mineral Management Services, U.S. Department of Interior. OCS Study MMS 86-0070.

Vladykov, V.D. and J.R. Greeley. 1963. Order Ac ipenseroidei. In: Fishes of the western

North Atlantic. Memoirs of the Sears Foundation for Marine Research 1: 24-60.

Waldman, J.R. and I.I. Wirgin. 1998. Status and restoration options for Atlantic sturgeon in North America. Conservation Biology 12:631-638.

Waring, G.T., C.P. Fairfield, C.M. Ruhs am, and M. Sano. 1993. Sperm whales

associated with Gulf Stream features off the north-eastern USA shelf. Fish. Oceanogr. 2(2):101–105.

Waring, G.T., J.M.Quintal, and C.P. Fairfiel d, editors. 2002. U.S. Atla ntic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments -- 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Woods Hole, MA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Scheville. 1977. Sperm whale codas. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 62:1485-1490.

Watkins, W.A., Moore, K.E. and Tyack, P. 1985. Sperm whales acoustic behaviour in the Southeast Caribbean. Cetology 49:1-15.

Weilgart, L.S., and H. Whitehead. 1988. Dist inctive vocalizations from mature male sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) . Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:1931-

1937.

Weilgart, L., and H. Whitehead. 1997. Gr oup-specific dialects and geographical variation in coda repertoire in Sout h Pacific sperm whales. Behav. Ecol.

Sociobiol. 40:277-285.

124Wershoven, J.L. and R.W. Wershoven. 1992. J uvenile green turtles in their nearshore habitat of Broward County, Flor ida: a five year review. In Salmon M. and J. Wyneken (compilers), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC302:121-123.

Whitehead, H. 1996. Babysitting, dive synchrony, and indications of alloparental care in perm whales. Behavioral Ec ology and Sociobiology 38:237-244.

Whitehead, H. 2002. Estimates of the curr ent global population size and historical trajectory for sperm whales. Mari ne Ecology Progre ss Series 242: 295–304.

Witherington, B.E. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other

nocturnal animals. In J. R. Clemmo ns and R. Buchholz (eds.). Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the Wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Pp. 303-328.

Witherington, B. E. 1994. Flotsam, je tsam, post-hatchling lo ggerheads, and the advecting surface smorgasbord. In: Proc . 14th Ann. Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and P. J. Eliazar, compilers. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-351, Miami, Fla. p. 166.

Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 2000. U nderstanding, assessing, and resolving light pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. 2 nd ed. rev. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Reports TR-2, 73 pp.

Witzell, W.N. 2002. Immature Atlantic loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ): suggested changes to the life history model. Herpetological Review 33(4):266-269.

Wooley, C.M. and E.J. Crateau. 1985. Movement, microhabitat, exploitation, and management of Gulf of Mexico sturge on, Apalachicola River, Florida. North

American Journal of Fish eries Management 5:590-605

Wooley, C.M., P.A. Moon, and E.J. Crateau. 1982. A larval Gulf of Mexico sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi ) from the Apalachicola Ri ver, Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 5(2):57-58.

Würsig, B., T.A. Jefferson, and D.J. Schmidl y. 2000. The Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. 232 pp.

Wyneken, J., K. Blair, S. Epperly, J. Va ughan, and L. Crowder. 2004. Surprising sex ratios in west Atlantic loggerhead hatc hlings – an unexpected pattern. Poster presentation at the 2004 International S ea Turtle Symposium in San Jose, Costa

Rica.

125Wynne, K. and M. Schwartz. 1999. Guide to marine mammals and turtles of the U.S.

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett. 115 pp.

Zug, G.R., and J.F. Parham. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys

coriacea (Testudines: Dermochelyidae): a skeletochronological analysis.

Chelonian Conservation a nd Biology 2(2):244-249.

Zurita, J.C., R. Herrera, A. Arenas, M.E. Torre s, C. Calderon, L. Gomez, J.C. Alvarado, and R. Villavicencio. 2003. Nesting loggerh ead and green sea turtles in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Pp. 125-127 In : Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical

Memorandum. NMFS SEFSC.

Zwinenberg. A.J. 1977. Kemp’s ridley, Lepidochelys kempii (Garman, 1880), undoubtedly the most endangered marine tu rtle today (with notes on the current

status of Lepidochelys olivacea ). Bulletin of the Maryland Herpetological Society, 13(3):170-192.

126APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. IMPLEMENTATION OF SEISMIC SURVEY MITIGAITON

MEASURES AND PROTECTED SPECIE S OBSERVER PROGRAM (NTL 2007- G02).

APPENDIX B. VESSEL STRIKE AVOIDANCE AND INJURED/DEAD

PROTECTED SPECIES RE PORTING (NTL 2007-G04).

APPENDIX C. MARINE TRASH AND DEBRIS AWARENESS AND ELIMINATION ((NTL 2007-G03).

127OMB Control Number: 1010-0154 OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2010

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE (MMS) GULF OF MEXICO (GOM) OCS REGION

NTL No. 2007-G02 Effective Date: February 7, 2007

NOTICE TO LESSEES AND OPERATORS (NTL) OF FEDERAL OIL, GAS, AND

SULPHUR LEASES IN THE OU TER CONTINENTAL SHELF,

GULF OF MEXICO OCS REGION

Implementation of Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures and Protected Species Observer Program

This NTL supersedes and replaces NTL No. 2004- G01. It does not introduce any new types of mitigation measures; however, it clarifies how you should implement seismic survey mitigation measures, including ramp-up procedures, the use of a minimum sound source, airgun testing and protected species observation and re porting. The measures contained herein apply to all on-lease surveys you conduct under 30 CFR 250 and all off- lease surveys you conduct under 30 CFR 251.

Background

The use of an airgun or airgun arrays while conducting seismic operations may have an impact on marine wildlife, including marine mammals and sea turtles. Some marine mammals, such as the sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ), and all sea turtles that inhabit the GOM are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). All marine mammals are protected under

the Marine Mammal Pr otection Act (MMPA).

In order to protect marine mammals and sea turtles during seismic operations, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires se ismic operators to use ramp-up and visual observation procedures when conducting seismic su rveys. Procedures for ramp-up, protected species observer training, visual monitoring and re porting are described in de tail in this NTL. These mitigation measures apply to geophysical activities conducted under lease terms, for all seismic survey operations conducted in waters deep er than 200 meters (6 56 feet) throughout the GOM and, in the GOM waters east of 88.0° W. longitude, for all seismic survey operations conducted regardless of water depth. Performa nce of these mitigation measures is also a condition of the approval of applications for geophysical permits. You must demonstrate your compliance with these mitigation measures by subm itting to MMS certain reports detailed in this

NTL.

Definitions

Terms used in this NTL ha ve the following meanings:1. Airgun means a device that releases compresse d air into the water column, creating an acoustical energy pulse with the pur pose of penetrating the seafloor.

2. Ramp-up means the gradual increase in emitted sound levels from an airgun array by systematically turning on the full complement of an array’s airguns over a period of time.

3. Visual monitoring means the use of trained observers to scan the ocean surface visually for the presence of marine mammals and s ea turtles. These observers must have successfully completed a visual observer trai ning program as described below. The area to be scanned visually includes, but is not limited to, the exclusion zone. Visual monitoring of an exclusion zone and adjacent waters is intended to establish and, when visual conditions allow, maintain a zone around the sound source and seismic vessel that is clear of marine mammals and sea turtles, thereby reducing or el iminating the potential for injury.

4. Exclusion zone means the area at and below the sea surface within a radi us of 500 meters surrounding the center of an airgun array and th e area within the imme diate vicinity of the survey vessel. Each survey vessel must maintain its own unique exclusion zone.

5. Whales mean all marine mammals in the GOM except dolphins (see definition below) and manatees. This includes all speci es of baleen whales (Suborder Mysticeti ), all species of beaked whales ( Ziphius cavirostris and Mesoplodon sp .), sperm whales ( Physeter macrocepahalus ), and pygmy and dwarf sperm whales ( Kogia sp .). Of the baleen whales, only the Bryde’s whale ( Balaenoptera edeni ) is expected to be present in the northern GOM and is considered uncommon. This spec ies has primarily been sighted in water depths less than 200 m in the eastern GOM. Si ghtings of other baleen whale species are highly unlikely.

6. Dolphins mean all marine mammal species in the Family Delphinidae . In the GOM, this includes, among others, killer whales, pilot whales, and all of the “dolphin” species.

Ramp-up Procedures

The intent of ramp-up is to warn marine mammals and sea turtles of pending seismic operations

and to allow sufficient time for those animals to leave the immediate vi cinity. Under normal conditions, animals sensitive to th ese activities are expected to m ove out of the area. For all seismic surveys, including airgun testing, use th e ramp-up procedures described below to allow whales, other marine mammals, and sea turtles to depart the exclusion zone before seismic surveying begins.

Measures to conduct ramp-up procedures during all seismic survey, including airgun testing, operations are as follows:

1. Visually monitor the exclusion zone and ad jacent waters for the absence of marine

mammals and sea turtles for at least 30 minutes before initiating ramp-up procedures. If none are detected, you may initiate ramp-up procedures. Do not initiate ramp-up procedures at night or when you cannot visua lly monitor the exclus ion zone for marine mammals and sea turtles if your minimu m source level drops below 160 dB re 1 μ Pa-m (rms) (see measure 5). Altering the vessel’s c ourse to shallower water depths (< 200m in the Central and Western Planning Areas) to circumvent ramp-up requirements of the 200 meter isobath will be considered noncompliant.

2. Initiate ramp-up procedures by firing a single airgun. The preferred airgun to begin with should be the smallest airgun, in terms of energy output (dB) and volume (in 3 ).

23. Continue ramp-up by gradually activating addi tional airguns over a pe riod of at least 20 minutes, but no longer than 40 minutes, until the desired operating level of the airgun array is obtained.

4. Immediately shut down all airguns ceasing seismic operations at any time a whale is detected entering or within the exclusion zone. You ma y recommence seismic operations and ramp-up of airguns only when the exclusion zone has been visually inspec ted for at least 30 minutes to

ensure the absence of marine mammals and sea turtles.

5. You may reduce the source level of the airgun ar ray, using the same shot interval as the seismic survey, to maintain a minimum source level of 160 dB re 1 μ Pa-m (rms) for the duration of certain activities. By maintain ing the minimum source level, you will not be required to conduct the 30-minute visual clearan ce of the exclusion zone before ramping back up to full output. Activities that ar e appropriate for maintaining the minimum source level are: (1) all turns between transect lines, when a survey using the full array is being conducted immediately prior to the turn and will be resumed immediately after the turn; and (2) unscheduled, unavoidable maintena nce of the airgun array that requires the interruption of a survey to shut down the array. The survey should be resumed immediately after the repairs are completed. There may be other occasions when this practice is appropriate, but use of the minimu m source level to avoid the 30-minute visual

clearance of the exclusion zone is only for events that occu r during a survey using the full power array. The minimum sound source level is not to be used to allow a later ramp-up after dark or in conditions when ramp -up would not otherwise be allowed.

Protected Species Observer Program

Visual Observers

Visual observers who have completed a protected species observer traini ng program as described below are required on all seismic vessels conducti ng operations in water depths greater than 200 meters (656 ft) throughout the GOM. Visual observers are required on all seismic vessels conducting operations in OCS water depths less than 200 meters (656 ft.) in the GOM waters east of 88.0° W. longitude. At least two protected species visual observers will be required on

watch aboard seismic vessels at all times duri ng daylight hours (dawn to dusk) when seismic operations are being conducted, unless conditi ons (fog, rain, darkness ) make sea surface observations impossible. If conditions deteriorat e during daylight hours such that the sea surface observations are halted, visual observations must resume as soon as conditions permit. Operators may engage trained third party observers, may utilize crew members after training as observers, or may use a combination of both th ird party and crew observers. During these observations, the following guidelines shall be follow ed: (1) other than brief alerts to bridge personnel of maritime hazards, no additional duties may be assigned to the observer during

his/her visual observation watch (if conditions warrant more vigi lant look-outs when navigating around or near maritime hazards, additional personnel must be used to ensure that watching for protected species remains the primary focus of the on-watch observers), (2) no observer will be

allowed more than 4 consecutive hours on watch as a visual observer, (3) a “break” time of no

less than 2 hours must be allowed before an obs erver begins another vi sual monitoring watch rotation (break time means no a ssigned observational duties), a nd (4) no person (crew or third party) on watch as a visual observer will be assigned a combined watch schedule of more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period. Due to the concentration and diligence required during visual observation watches, operators who choose to use trained crew members in these positions may

3select only those crew members who demonstrate willingness as well as ability to perform these

duties.

Training

All visual observers must have completed a pr otected species observer training course. MMS will not sanction particular trainers or training programs. However, basic training criteria have been established and must be adhered to by any entity that offers obser ver training. Operators may utilize observers trained by third parties, may send crew for training conducted by third parties, or may develop their own training progr am. All training programs offering to fulfill the observer training requirement must: (1) furnish to MMS, at the a ddress listed in this NTL, a course information packet that includes the na me and qualifications (i.e ., experience, training completed, or educational background) of the instructor(s), the course outline or syllabus, and course reference material; (2) furnish each train ee with a document stating successful completion of the course; and (3) provide MMS with names, affiliations, and dates of course completion of

trainees.

The training course must in clude the following elements:

I. Brief overview of the MMPA and the ESA as they relate to seismic acquisition and protection of marine mammals and sea turtles in the GOM,

II. Brief overview of seismic ac quisition operations in the GOM,

III. Overview of seismic mitigation measures (NTLs) and the protected species observer program in the GOM,

IV. Discussion of the role and responsibilities of th e protected species observer in the GOM, including:

a) Legal requirements (why you are here and what you do), b) Professional behavior (code of conduct), c) Integrity, d) Authority of protected species observer to call for shut-down of seismic acquisition operations, e) Assigned duties, 1) What can be asked of the observer, 2) What cannot be asked of the observer, f) Reporting of violations and coercion,

V. Identification of GOM marine mammals and sea turtles, with emphasis on whales,

VI. Cues and search methods for locating ma rine mammals, especially whales, and sea turtles,

VII. Data collection a nd reporting requirements: a) Forms and reports to MMS via email at protectedspecies@mms.gov on the 1 st and

15 th of each month, b) Whale in exclusion zone/shut-down report within 24 hours.

4Visual Monitoring Methods

The observers on duty will look for whales, othe r marine mammals, and sea turtles using the naked eye and hand-held binoculars provided by th e seismic vessel operator. The observers will

stand watch in a suitable location that will not in terfere with navigation or operation of the vessel and that affords the observers an optimal view of the sea surface. Th e observers will provide

360 o coverage surrounding the seismic vessel and w ill adjust their positions appropriately to ensure adequate coverage of the entire area. Th ese observations must be consistent, diligent, and

free of distractions for the duration of the watch.

Visual monitoring will begin no less than 30 minut es prior to the begi nning of ramp-up and continue until seismic operations cease or sigh ting conditions do not allo w observation of the sea surface (e.g., fog, rain, darkness). If a marine mammal or sea turtle is observed, the observer should note and monitor the position (including lat./long. of vessel and relative bearing and estimated distance to the animal) until the animal dives or moves out of visual range of the observer. Make sure you continue to observe for additional animal s that may surface in the area, as often there are numerous animals that may surface at varying time intervals. At any time a

whale is observed within an estimated 500 meters (1,640 feet) of the sound source array (“exclusion zone”), whether due to the whale’ s movement, the vessel’s movement, or because the whale surfaced inside the exclusion zone, th e observer will call for the immediate shut-down of the seismic operation, includi ng airgun firing (the vessel may c ontinue on its course but all airgun discharges must cease). The vessel operator must comply immediately with such a call byan on-watch visual observer. Any disagreement or discussion should occur only after shutdown. When no marine mammals or sea turtles ar e sighted for at least a 30-minute period, rampup of the source array may begin. Ramp-up cannot begin unless conditions allow the sea surface to be visually inspected for marine mamma ls and sea turtles for 30 minutes prior to commencement of ramp-up (unless the method desc ribed in the section en titled “Experimental Passive Acoustic Monitoring” is used). Thus, ramp-up cannot begi n after dark or in conditions that prohibit visual inspection (f og, rain, etc.) of the exclusion zone. Any shut-down due to a whale(s) sighting within the exclusion zone mu st be followed by a 30-minute all-clear period and then a standard, full ramp-up. Any shut-down fo r other reasons, including, but not limited to,

mechanical or electronic failu re, resulting in the cessation of the sound source for a period greater than 20 minutes, must al so be followed by full ramp-up procedures. In recognition of occasional, short periods of the cessation of airg un firing for a variety of reasons, periods of airgun silence not exceeding 20 minutes in duration will not require ramp-up for the resumption of seismic operations if: (1) vi sual surveys are continued dilige ntly throughout the silent period (requiring daylight and reasonable sighting cond itions), and (2) no whales, other marine mammals, or sea turtles are observed in the excl usion zone. If whales, other marine mammals,

or sea turtles are observed in the exclusion zone during the sh ort silent period, resumption of seismic survey operations must be preceded by ramp-up.

Reporting

The importance of accurate and complete reporti ng of the results of the mitigation measures cannot be overstated. Only through diligent and careful reporting can MMS, and subsequently NOAA Fisheries, determine the need for and effectiveness of mitigation measures. Information on observer effort and seismic operations are as im portant as animal sighting and behavior data. In order to accommodate various vessels’ bridge practices and preference s, vessel operators and observers may design data reporting forms in whatever format they deem convenient and

5appropriate. Alternatively, obser vers or vessel operators may a dopt the United Kingdom’s Joint

Nature Conservation Committee form s (available at their website www.jncc.gov.uk ). At a minimum, the following items should be recorded and included in reports to the MMS:

Observer Effort Report : Prepared for each day during whic h seismic acquisition operations

are conducted. Furnish an observe r effort report to MMS on the 1 st and the 15 th of each month

that includes:

• Vessel name,

• Observers’ names and affiliations,

• Survey type (e.g., site, 3D, 4D),

• MMS Permit Number (for “off-lease seismi c surveys”) or OCS Lease Number (for “on-lease seismic surveys”),

• Date,

• Time and lat./long. when daily visual survey began,

• Time and lat./long. when daily visual survey ended,

• Average environmental conditions while on visual survey, including Wind speed and direction, Sea state (glassy, slight, choppy, rough or Beaufort scale), Swell (low, medium, high or swell height in meters), Overall visibility ( poor, moderate, good).

Survey Report : Prepared for each day during which seismic acquisition operations are conducted and the airguns are be ing discharged. Furnish a su rvey report to MMS on the 1 st and

the 15 th of each month during which operations are being conducted that includes:

• Vessel name,

• Survey type (e.g., site, 3D, 4D),

• MMS Permit Number (for “off-lease se ismic surveys”) or OCS Lease Number (for “on-lease seismic surveys”),

• Date,

• Time pre-ramp-up survey begins,

• What marine mammals and sea turtles were seen during pre-ramp-up survey?

• Time ramp-up begins,

• Were whales seen during ramp-up?

• Time airgun array is operati ng at the desired intensity,

• What marine mammals and sea tu rtles were seen during survey?

• If whales were seen, was any action taken (i.e., survey delayed, guns shut down)?

• Reason that whales might not have b een seen (e.g., swell, glare, fog),

• Time airgun array stops firing.

Sighting Report : Prepared for each sighting of a marine mammal (whale or dolphin) or sea turtle made during seismic ac quisition operations. Furnish a sighting report to MMS on the 1 st

and the 15 th of each month during which operations are being conducted that includes:

• Vessel name,

• Survey type (e.g., site, 3D, 4D),

6• MMS Permit Number (for “off-lease se ismic surveys”) or OCS Lease Number (for “on-lease seismic surveys”),

• Date,

• Time,

• Watch status (Were you on watch or was this sighting made opportunistically by you or someone else?),

• Observer or person who made the sighting,

• Lat./long. of vessel,

• Bearing of vessel,

• Bearing and estimated range to animal(s) at first sighting,

• Water depth (meters),

• Species (or identification to lowest possible taxonomic level),

• Certainty of identification (s ure, most likely, best guess),

• Total number of animals,

• Number of juveniles,

• Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, colo r and pattern, scars or marks, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics),

• Direction of animal’s trav el – compass direction,

• Direction of animal’s travel – relate d to the vessel (drawing preferably),

• Behavior (as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed changes in behavior,)

• Activity of vessel,

• Airguns firing? (yes or no),

• Closest distance (meters) to animals from center of airgun or airgun array (whether firing or not).

Note: If this sighting was of a whale(s) within the exclusion zone that resulted in a shutdown of the airguns, include in the sighting re port the observed behavior of the whale(s) before shut-down, the observed behavior following shut-down (specifi cally noting any change in behavior), and the length of time between shut -down and subsequent ramp-up to resume the seismic survey (note if seismic survey was not resumed as soon as possible following shutdown). Send this report to MMS within 24 hours of the shut-down . These sightings should also be included in the first regular semi-monthly report following the incident.

Additional information, important points, and co mments are encouraged. All reports will be

submitted to MMS on the 1 st and the 15 th of each month (with one exception noted above). Forms should be scanned (or data typed) and sent via email to protectedspecies@mms.gov

.

Please note that these marine mammal and sea tu rtle reports are in a ddition to any reports you

submit under NTL No. 98-20 , dated September 15, 1998, and NTL No. 2005-G07 , effective July 1, 2005, and all progress and final reports require d as a condition of your geophysical permit.

Borehole Seismic Surveys

Borehole seismic surveys differ from surface seis mic surveys in a number of ways, including the use of much smaller airgun arrays, having an av erage survey time of 12-24 hours, utilizing a

7sound source that is not usually moving at 4-5 knots, and requiri ng the capability of moving the

receiver in the borehole between shots. Du e to these differences, the following altered mitigations apply only to borehole seismic surveys:

• During daylight hours, when visual observ ations of the exclus ion zone are being performed as required in this NTL, borehole seismic operations will not be required to ramp-up for shutdowns of 30 minutes or less in duration, as long as no whales, other marine mammals, or sea tur tles are observed in the exclusion zone during the shutdown. If a whale, other mari ne mammal, or sea turtle is sighted in the exclusion zone, ramp-up is required and may begin only after visual surveys

confirm that the exclusion zone has been clear for 30 minutes.

• During nighttime or when conditions prohibi t visual observation of the exclusion zone, ramp-up will not be required for shutdowns of 20 minutes or less in duration. For borehole seismic surveys that utilize passive acoustics during nighttime and periods of poor visibility, ramp-up is not required for shutdowns of

30 minutes or less.

• Nighttime or poor visibility ramp-up is allowed only when passive acoustics are used to ensure that no whales are presen t in the exclusion zone (as for all other seismic surveys). Operators are strongly encouraged to acquire the survey in daylight hours when possible.

• Protected species observers must be used during daylight hours, as required in this NTL, and may be stationed either on the s ource boat or on the associated drilling rig or platform if a clear view of the sea surface in the exclusion zone and adjacent waters is available.

• All other mitigations and pr ovisions for seismic surveys as set forth in this NTL will apply to borehole seismic surveys.

• Reports should reference OCS Lease Nu mber, Area/Block and Borehole Number.

Experimental Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Whales, especially sperm whales, are very vocal marine mammals, and periods of silence are usually short and most often occur when these animals are at the surface and may be detected using visual observers. However, sperm whales are at the great est risk of potential injury from seismic airguns when they are submerged a nd under the airgun arra y. Passive acoustic monitoring appears to be very effective at de tecting submerged and diving sperm whales, and some other marine mammal species, when they are not detectable by visual observation. MMS strongly encourages operators to participate in an experimental program by including passive acoustic monitoring as part of the protected sp ecies observer program. Inclusion of passive acoustic monitoring does not relieve an operator of any of the mitigations (including visual observations) in this NTL with the following exception : Monitoring for whales with a passive acoustic array by an observer proficient in its use will allow ramp-up and the subsequent start of a seismic survey during times of reduced visibilit y (darkness, fog, rain, etc.) when such ramp-up otherwise would not be permitted using only vi sual observers. If you use passive acoustic monitoring, include an assessment of the usefulness, effectiveness, and problems encountered

with the use of that met hod of marine mammal det ection in the reports desc ribed in this NTL. A description of the passive acoustic system, the software used, and the monitoring plan should also be reported to MMS at the beginning of its use.

8Paperwork Reduction Act

The PRA (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires us to inform you that we collect the information described in this NTL to ensure that you conduct operations in a manner that will not jeopardize threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify cr itical habitat that has been designated for those species. We protect all proprietary information su bmitted according to the Freedom of Information Act and 30 CFR 250.196. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. You are not obligated to respond until the OMB has approved this co llection of information. We estimate the total

hour burden to be 751 hours and the total “non-hour co st” burden to be $1,854,080. Direct comments regarding the burden, or any other aspect of this information collection, to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, Mail Stop 4230, Minerals Manage ment Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC

20240.

In addition, this NTL refers to information collect ion requirements under 30 CFR 250, subpart B. The OMB has approved all of the information collection requirements in these regulations and assigned OMB
Control Number 1010-0151.

Contact

Any questions regarding this NTL should be submitted in writing to: protectedspecies@mms.gov

. Submittals by mail may be directed to:

Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

Attention: Environmenta l Sciences Unit (MS 5430)

1201 Elmwood Park Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70123-2394

[original signed by] Chris C. Oynes Regional Director

9OMB Control Number: 1010-0154 OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2010

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE (MMS) GULF OF MEXICO (GOM) OCS REGION

NTL No. 2007-G04 Effective Date: February 7, 2007

NOTICE TO LESSEES AND OPERATORS (NTL) OF FEDERAL OIL, GAS, AND SULPHUR
LEASES IN THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF, GULF OF MEXICO OCS REGION

Vessel Strike Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting

The MMS is issuing this NTL pursuant to 30 CFR 250.103 and 30 CFR 250.282 to update the guidelines on how you should implement monitoring programs to minimize the risk of vessel strikes to protected species and report observations of injured or dead protected species. In lieu of a formal observer program, this NTL provides specific guidelines you should follow to identify and avoid injury to marine mammals and sea turtles. This NTL supersedes NTL 200 3-G10 on this subject and applies to all existing and future oil and gas operations in the GOM OCS.

Background

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has de termined that collisions with OCS support/service vessels could injure or kill protected species (e.g., sperm whales, other marine mammals and sea turtles) in the Gulf of Mexico OCS while engaged in supporting oil and gas industry activities. NMFS recommends the following measures to reduce the risk associated with vessel strikes or disturbance of protected species. These measures apply to listed and non-listed cetaceans and sea turtles.

Protected Species Identification

Vessel crews should use a GOM reference guide that includes and helps identify the 28 species of whales and dolphins, 5 species of sea turtles, and the single species of manatee that might be encountered in the

GOM OCS.

Vessel Strike Avoidance

You should do the following in order to avoid causing injury or death to marine mammals and sea turtles:

1. Vessel operators and crews should maintain a vi gilant watch for marine mammals and sea turtles and slow down or stop their vessel to avoid striking protected species.

2. When whales are sighted, maintain a distance of 100 yards (91 meters) or greater from the whale.

If the whale is believed to be a North Atlantic right whale, you should maintain a minimum distance of 500 yards (457 meters) from the animal (50 CFR 2224.103).

3. When sea turtles or small cetaceans are sighted, attempt to maintain a distance of 50 yards (45 meters) or greater whenever possible.

4. When cetaceans are sighted while a vessel is underway , attempt to remain parallel to the animal’s course. Avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction until the cetacean has left the area.5. Reduce vessel speed to 10 knots or less when mo ther/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near an underway vessel when safety permits. A single cetacean at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged animal s in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures should always be exercised.

6. Whales may surface in unpredictable locations or approach slowly moving vessels. When you sight animals in the vessel’s path or in close proximity to a moving vessel, reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. Do not engage the e ngines until the animals are clear of the area.

Injured/Dead Protected Species Reporting

Vessel crews must report sightings of any injured or dead protected species (marine mammals and sea turtles) immediately, regardless of whether the injury or death is caused by your vessel. Report marine mammals to the NOAA Fisheries Stranding Hotline at (305) 862-2850 and sea turtles to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office at (727) 824-5312. In additi on, if the injury or death was caused by a collision with your vessel, you must notify MMS within 24 hours of the strike by email to protectedspecies@mms.gov . The report should include the date and location (latitude/longitude) of the strike, the name of the vessel involved, and the sp ecies identification or a description of the animal, if possible. If oil and gas industry activity is responsib le for the injury or death, the responsible parties should remain available to assist the respectiv e salvage and stranding network as needed.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) Statement

The PRA (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires us to inform you that we collect the information described in this NTL to ensure that you conduct operations in a manner that will not jeopardize threatened or endangered species. We protect all proprietary in formation submitted according to the Freedom of Information Act and 30 CFR 250.196. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Mana gement and Budget (OMB) Control Number. We estimate the hour burden to be one-half hour per repor t. Direct comments regarding the burden or any other aspect of this information collection to th e Information Collection Clearance Officer, Mail Stop 4230, Minerals Management Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240.

In addition, this NTL refers to information collection requirements under 30 CFR 250, subpart B. OMB has approved all of the information collection requirements in these regulations and assigned OMB

Control Number 1010-0151.

Contact

Any questions regarding this NTL should be submitted in writing to: protectedspecies@mms.gov

.

[original signed by]

Chris C. Oynes Regional Director

2OMB Control Number: 1010-0154 OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2010

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

GULF OF MEXICO OCS REGION

NTL No. 2007–G03 Effective Date: February 7, 2007

NOTICE TO LESSEES AND OPERATORS (NTL) OF FEDERAL OIL, GAS, AND

SULPHUR LEASES AND PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY HOLDERS IN THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF, GULF OF MEXICO OCS REGION

Marine Trash and Debris Awareness and Elimination

This NTL is being issued pursuant to 30 CFR 250.103 to provide information on the marine trash and debris awareness training video and slide show, and both postal and e-mail addresses for submitting annual training reports. This NTL supersedes and replaces NTL No. 2003-G11, effective June 19, 2003, on this subject and applies to all existing and future oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico OCS.

Background

Marine trash and debris pose a threat to fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and other marine animals; cause costly delays and repairs for commercial and recreational boating interests; detract from the aesthetic quality of recreational shore fronts; and increase the cost of beach and park maintenance. As oil and gas industry activities expand into deeper waters, the number of species of protected marine animals exposed to marine debris is increasing and now includes the sperm whale, an endangered species, as well as other marine mammals and five species of sea

turtles.

Since oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico contribute to this chronic problem, 30 CFR 250.300(a) and (b)(6) prohibit you from deliberately discharging containers and other similar materials (i.e., trash and debris) into the ma rine environment, and 30 CFR 250.300(c) requires you to make durable identification markings on equipment, tools and containers (especially drums), and other material.

Furthermore, the intentional jettisoning of trash has been the subject of strict laws such as

MARPOL-Annex V and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, and regulations imposed by various agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).2

These USCG and EPA regulations further require that you become more proactive in avoiding accidental loss of solid waste items by developing waste management plans, posting informational placards, manifesting trash sent to shore, and using special precautions such as covering outside trash bins to prevent accidental loss of solid waste.

Therefore, you should exercise special caution when you handle and dispose of small items and packaging materials, particularly those made of non-biodegradable, environmentally persistent materials such as plastic or glass that can be lost in the marine environment and washed ashore. Increasing your individual workers’ awareness of the problem and emphasizing their responsibilities will help reduce the litter problem further and control the unintended loss of items such as empty buckets, hard hats, shrink wrap, strip lumber and pipe thread protectors.

Your adherence to these requirements has reduced, if not eliminated, trash intentionally jettisoned into the Gulf of Mexico. However, the MMS is still concerned about the accidental loss of articles from structures and vessels. In some cases, this results from poor waste management practices (e.g., no lids or unsecured lids on waste receptacles), but in others it is caused by the failure of individuals to secure materials and personal belongings aboard vessels

and facilities. To reduce further the accidental introduction of marine trash and debris into the Gulf of Mexico, you must immediately implement the following programs.

Marine Trash and Debris Placards

Effective May 31, 2003, you must post placards that include each of the information text boxes in Appendix 1 of this NTL in prominent places on all fixed and floating production facilities that have sleeping or food preparation capabilities and on mobile drilling units engaged in oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. All of the placards depicted, with the language specified, should be displayed on an approximately 5x8 inch format. These signs should be displayed at line-of-sight height at or near boat landings and heliports, in mess areas, and in the recreation or training or orientation area. One or more areas may be omitted if there is insufficient space.
These notices should be referenced, and their c ontents explained, during any initial orientation given on the facility for visitors or occupants. Placards must be sturdy enough to withstand the local environment and must be replaced when damage or wear compromises readability.

Marine Trash and Debris Awareness Training

Effective May 31, 2003, all of your offshore employees and those contractors actively engaged in your offshore operations (e.g., wireline operators, contract lease operators, and maintenance or construction crews) must have completed marine trash and debris awareness training described below at least once. Thereafter, all such personnel must complete this training annually.

The training for employees and contractors consists of two parts: (1) viewing a marine trash and debris training video or slide show and (2) r eceiving an explanation from management personnel from the lessee or designated lease operator that emphasizes their commitment to the message of

this NTL.

.3

You may obtain the marine trash and debris tr aining video, produced by the Offshore Operators Committee (OOC), through the OOC website at www.offshoreoperators.com . The video is available in English and Spanish versions as a DVD or VHS tape. The video may also be downloaded directly from the website.

Alternatively, you may fulfill this training requirement by viewing the marine trash and debris training slide show developed by OOC and available on the aforementioned website as a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.

Marine Trash and Debris Awareness Training and Certification Process

Effective July 1, 2003, you should develop and be using a marine trash and debris awareness training and certification process that reasonably assures that the employees and contractors specified above are in fact trained. Your trai ning process should include the following elements:

1) viewing of either the video or the slide show by the personnel specified above using one of the following methods: a) attendance at periodic meetings held for this purpose; b) as part of several scheduled training components; c) web-based training with email notification; or d) training by a third-party contractor; 2) an explanation from the management that conveys the commitment of the company to achieve the objectives of the trash and debris containment requirement; 3) attendance measures (initial and annual); and 4) recordkeeping and availability of records for inspection by MMS.

By January 31 st of each year, provide the MMS with an annual report (1–2 pages) signed by a company official that describes your marine tr ash and debris awareness training process and certifies that the training process has been followed for the previous calendar year. A sample annual report is available at the OOC website above. Send the report to:

Mr. Herb Leedy Minerals Management Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office of Leasing and Environment (MS 5430)

1201 Elmwood Park Blvd.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70123

In lieu of mailing the report, you may send it by e-mail to trashanddebris@mms.gov

.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) Statement

The PRA (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires us to inform you that we collect the information described in this NTL to ensure that you conduct operations in a manner that will not jeopardize threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat that has been designated for those species. We protect all proprietary information submitted according to the

.4

Freedom of Information Act and 30 CFR 250.197. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. We estimate the hour burden to be one-half hour per training record. We estimate the hour burden to be one-half hour for each annual report and certification. The placard postings are exempt from the PRA require ments. Direct comments regarding the burden or any other aspect of this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, Mail Stop 4230, Minerals Management Se rvice, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20240.

In addition, this NTL refers to information collection requirements under 30 CFR 250, subparts B and C. The OMB has approved all of the information collection requirements in these regulations and assigned OMB Control Numbers 1010-0151 and 1010-0057, respectively.

Contact

Submit any questions regarding this NTL by e-mail to: marinedebris@mms.gov

.

[original signed by]

. Chris C. Oynes Regional Director

.5



### Appendix 1

Marine Debris Placards



## WHAT IS MARINE DEBRIS ?

Marine debris is any object or fragment of wood, metal, glass, rubber, plastic, cloth, paper or any other man-made item or material

that is lost or discarded in the marine environment. Marine debris may be intentionally dumped, accidentally dropped, or indirectly deposited. Whatever the source, marine debris is a direct result of human activities on land and at sea. Depending upon its composition, marine debris may sink to the seafloor, drift in the water column, or float on the surface of the sea. Certain debris, such as plastics, can persist for hundreds of years in the marine environment without decomposing.



## WARNING!

YOUR ACTIONS MAY SUBJECT YOU TO SEVERE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES!

The disposal and/or discharge of any solid waste anywhere in the marine environment (other than ground-up food particles) is strictly prohibited by U.S. Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency regulations. THIS INCLUDES MATERIALS OR DEBRIS

ACCIDENTALLY LOST OVERBOARD.

The disposal of equipment, cables, chains, containers or other materials into offshore waters is prohibited by the Minerals Management Service (30 CFR 250.300(b)(6)). THIS INCLUDES

MATERIALS OR DEBRIS ACCIDENTALLY LOST OVERBOARD.

.6



## ATTENTION!

MARINE DEBRIS MAY CAUSE SEVERE ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE!

Marine debris discarded or lost from offshore and coastal sources may injure or kill fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds and

other wildlife.

Thousands of marine animals, including marine mammals, sea turtles and seabirds, die every year from entanglement in fishing line, strapping bands, discarded ropes and nets and plastic six-pack rings. Additionally, unknown numbers of marine animals die each year from internal injury, intestinal blockage and starvation as a result of ingesting marine debris.

Marine debris fouls boat propellers and clogs water intake ports on engines thereby endangering the safety of fishermen and boaters and resulting in heavy loss of time and money.

Marine debris detracts from the aesthetic quality of recreational beaches and shorelines and increases the cost of park and beach

maintenance.

.7



## ATTENTION!

SECURE ALL LOOSE ARTICLES!

NOAA Fisheries now expects petroleum industry personnel to pick up and recover any articles lost overboard from boats and offshore structures as safety conditions permit.

Protect marine animals, as well as your valuable time and money, by doing the following to prevent accidental loss of these items:

Properly securing all materials, equipment and personal belongings. Articles such as hardhats, life vests, sunglasses, cigarette lighters, parts bags, buckets, shrink wrap, strip lumber, and pipe thread protectors become marine debris when lost overboard.

Making sure that all trash receptacles have tight fitting lids and that

the lids are used.

Providing and using secure cigarette butt containers. Cigarette butts are one of the most common forms of marine debris. Many cigarette butts contain some form of plastic and do not decompose in the ocean. Cigarette butts pose a major threat to marine wildlife as they resemble food and cause gut blockages and starvation when ingested.

Doing your part to eliminate marine debris. Encourage others to be responsible about marine debris by making suggestions to secure potential marine debris on your boat or structure or by participating in a beach cleanup.

.

## Appendix C

Attachment 2 Biological Assessment & Addendum1 Biological Assessment
USFWS Consultation
Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012

The Proposed Actions

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1631 and the following ( et seq .)), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq .), establishes a national policy designed to protect and conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA is administered by the United States (U.S.) Department of the Interior (USDOI), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Section 7 of the ESA governs in teragency cooperation and consultation. Under Section 7, the USDOI, Minerals Management Service (MMS) consults with both FWS and
NMFS to ensure that activities on the Outer C ontinental Shelf (OCS) under MMS jurisdiction do not jeopardize the continued existence of thr eatened or endangered species and/or result in
adverse modification or destruction of their critical habitat.

Consultation with FWS under Section 7 of the ESA on Western Planning Area (WPA) and Central Planning Area (CPA) Gulf of Mexico (GOM) OCS oil and gas activities has been ongoing since 1979. Until recently, consultation on the EPA has always been conducted under the formal process because of the size and location of the lease sales, the lack of history of the oil and gas industry in the area, and the potential impacts to listed species from a proposed action’s activities. However, since oil and gas activities first began in GOM State and OCS waters, many changes have occurred including enactment of laws regulating the offshore industry, incorporation of mitigating measures, increased experience and cooperation of the industry, technology advancements, and studies and research on the physical environment and biological resources of the GOM and adjacent coastal waters and impact-producing factors (IPF’s) of the oil and gas activities on the environment and liste d species. Therefore, MMS and FWS have determined that an informal consultation is sufficient for WPA Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; and CPA Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222.

Description of the Proposed Actions

The proposed actions are 11 oil and gas lease sales in the WPA and CPA as scheduled under the 5-Year Program for 2007-2012 and analyzed by MMS in Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volumes I and II (USDOI, MMS, 2007)

. Federal regulations allow for several related or similar proposals to be analyzed in one EIS (40 CFR 1502.4). Since the proposed lease sales in each lease sale area and their projected activities are very similar, MMS has prepared a single EIS for the 11 WPA and CPA lease sales in the proposed 5-Year Program. The EIS, from wh ich this BA is tiered, is hereby incorporated by reference.

Proposed WPA Lease Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218

The proposed WPA lease sales are Sale 204 in 2007, Sale 207 in 2008, Sale 210 in 2009, Sale 215 in 2010, and Sale 218 in 2011. The WPA encompasses about 28.6 million acres (ac) located 3 leagues (10 miles (mi)) offshore Texas and ex tends seaward to the limits of the EEZ in water2 depths up to 3,346 meters (m) (10,978 ft) ( Figure 1-1 ). Each WPA proposed lease sale would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA for oil and gas operations ( Figure 1-1 ), with the following exceptions:

(1) whole and partial blocks within th e boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and

(2) whole and partial blocks that lie w ithin the 1.4-nautical-mile (nmi) buffer zone north of the continental shelf boundary between the United States (U.S.) and Mexico, for Sales 204, 207, 210, and 215 only.

The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of any one proposed

WPA lease sale is 0.242-0.423 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 1.644-2.647 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. The proposed WPA lease sales incl ude proposed lease stipulations designed to

reduce environmental risks and are discussed in Chapter 2.3

.

Proposed CPA Lease Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222

The proposed CPA lease sales are Sale 205 in 2007, Sale 206 in 2008, Sale 208 in 2009, Sale 213 in 2010, Sale 216 in 2011, and Sale 222 in 2012. The CPA sale area encompasses about 58.7 million ac of the CPA’s 66.3 million ac and is located 3 nmi offshore Louisiana, Mississippi, and

Alabama and extends seaward to the limits of the EEZ in water depths up to 3,458 m (11,345 ft) ( Figure 1-1 ). Each subsequent proposed CPA sale woul d offer for lease all unleased blocks in the CPA for oil and gas operations ( Figure 1-1 ), with the following exceptions:

(1) blocks directly south of Florida and within 100 mi of the Florida coast (north of the easternmost portion of the CPA sale area as shown on Figure 1-1 );

(2) blocks under an existing Presidentia l withdrawal through 2012, as well as subject to annual congressional moratoria (southeastern portion of the CPA sale

area as shown on Figure 1-1 );

(3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and

(4) whole and partial blocks that lie with in the 1.4-nmi buffer zone north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico, for Sales 205, 206, 208, and 213 only.

The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of any one proposed CPA lease sale is 0.776-1.292 BBO and 3.236-5.229 Tcf of gas. The subsequent, proposed CPA lease sales include proposed lease stipulations d esigned to reduce environmental risks and are

discussed in Chapter 2.4

.

Species Descriptions, Impacts and Analyses

The following endangered and threatened species are found in the proposed action area and were analyzed by MMS:3 Listed Species Texas Louisiana Mississippi Alabama

Brown pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis) E E E

Bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus) T T T T

Piping plover ( Charadrius

melodus ) T, CH T, CH T, CH T, CH

Whooping crane ( Grus

americana ) E, CH

Alabama beach

mouse ( Peromyscus polionotus

ammobates ) E, CH

Perdido beach

mouse ( Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis ) E, CH

Loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta

caretta ) T T T T

Kemp’s ridley

sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ) E

BIRDS

The following coastal and marine bird species th at inhabit or frequent the north-central and western GOM coastal areas are recognized by FW S as either endangered or threatened: piping plover, whooping crane, bald eagle, and brown pelican.

Piping Plover The piping plover ( Charadrius melodus ) is a migratory shorebird that is endemic to North America. The piping plover breeds along shorelines in the northern Great Plains, the Great Lakes, and along the Atlantic Coast (Newfoundland to No rth Carolina). It winters on the Atlantic and
Gulf Coasts from North Carolina to Mexico and in the Bahamas West Indies. The final rule on critical habitat of piping plover was published July 10, 2001; there are 20 units of critical habitat in western Florida south to Tampa Bay, 3 areas in Alabama, 15 in Mississippi, 7 in Louisiana, and 37 in Texas (66 FR 132, pp. 36037-36086). Critical winteri ng habitat includes the land between mean lower low water and any densely vegeta ted habitat, which is not used by the piping plover. It has been hypothesized that specific wint ering habitat, which includes coastal sand flats and mud flats in close proximity to large inlets or passes, may attract the largest concentrations of piping plovers because of a preferred prey base and/or because the substrate coloration provides protection from aerial predators due to chroma tic matching, or camouflage (Nicholls and4 Baldassarre, 1990). This species remains in a precar ious state given its low population numbers, sparse distribution, and continued threats to ha bitat throughout its range. About 2,299 birds were located on the U.S. wintering grounds during th e 2001 census; 83 percent of these were found on the Gulf coast. The highest numbers of winteri ng plovers occurred along the Texas coast (43.6%), with Louisiana ranked second (21.4%). Piping plovers were commonly found on mud flats (36.3%), sandy beaches (33.2%), and sand/salt flats (23.1%) (Haig and Ferland, 2002). They begin arriving on the wintering grounds in July and keep arriving through September.

Behavioral observations of piping plovers on the wintering grounds suggest that they spend the majority of their time foraging. Primary prey for wintering plovers includes polychaete marine worms, various crustaceans, insects, and sometimes bivalve mollusks. They peck prey from on top of or just beneath the sediment. Foraging usuall y is on moist or wet sand, mud, or fine shell. In some cases, a mat of blue-green algae may c over this substrate. When not foraging, plovers can be found in aggressive encounters, roosting, preening, bathing, and moving among available habitat locations. The habitats used by wintering birds include beaches, mud flats, sand flats, algal flats, and wash over passes (are as where breaks in the sand dunes result in an inlet). Wintering plovers are dependent on a mosaic of habitat patches and move among these patches depending on local weather and tidal conditions. Reise (1 985) noted some time ago that tidal flat communities he experimented on locally app eared dominated by predatory processes. Competition between organisms, including prey items of birds similar to the piping plover, seemed unimportant. However, he went on to say that “the interactions between the constituent species on the tidal flats are not chaotic by u ndoubtedly lack perfection [simplicity]. As a consequence, it is inherently impossible to arrive at clear-cut conclusions about their pattern.” In contrast, from a more recent perspective, Simberloff (2004) notes that “because of the contingency and complexity of its subject matter, community ecology has few general laws. Laws and models in community ecology are highly cont ingent, and their domain is usually very local. This fact does not mean that community ecology is a weak science; in fact, it is the locus of exciting advances, with growing mechanistic understanding of causes, patterns, and processes. Further, traditional community ecological research , often local, experiment al, and reductionist, is crucial in understanding and res ponding to many environmental problems, including those posed by global changes. For both scientific and societal reasons, it is not time to abandon community ecology.” Shallow-water benthic community ecolo gy is a flourishing and inexpensive endeavor, and advances in community ecology should help the conservation of tidal flats inside and outside critical habitats and may prevent extinction of the piping plover.

In late February, piping plovers begin leaving the wintering grounds to migrate back to their breeding sites. Northward migration peaks in late Ma rch, and by late May mo st birds have left the wintering grounds. The migration of the piping plover is poorly understood. On the northern breeding grounds, river alteration and reservoir creation cause high water flow where birds once relied on exposed sand bars to breed. However, diversion of peak flows in northern nesting
habitat is also harmful. The result is encroach ment of vegetation usually kept under control by scour during high river flows.

Vegetation imposes an extreme threat of predator s on breeding adults. However, breeding in the open in temperate climates requires that parent s may have to take turns brooding and soaking themselves in water to avoid overheating, and excess heat will cause desertion. Females may renest soon after but males may take longer to ren est, if they do so at all (Szekely and Williams, 1995; Szekely et al., 1999).

Whooping Crane The whooping crane ( Grus americana ) is an omnivorous, wading bird. The whooping crane formerly ranged from summer breeding grounds within the central Canadian provinces and northern prairie states to southern coastal wintering grounds from central Mexico to the Carolinas (Bent, 1926). Whooping cranes currently exist in three wild populations and at five captive locations (USDOI, FWS, 1994). The only self-susta ining wild population nests in the Northwest5 Territories and adjacent areas of Alberta, Canada , primarily within the boundaries of Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP). These birds winter in coastal marshes an d estuarine habitats along the Gulf Coast at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Texas, and represent the majority of the world’s population of free-ra nging whooping cranes. Another wild flock was created with the transfer of wild whooping crane eggs from nests in the WB NP to be reared by
wild sandhill cranes in an effort to establish a migratory, Rocky Mountai ns Population (USDOI, FWS, 1994). This population summers in Idaho, western Wyoming, and southwestern Montana and winter in the middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. The third wild population is the first step in an effort to establish a nonmigrator y population in Florida (USDOI, FWS, 1994). The December 1993 wild population was estimated at 160; the captive population contained 101 birds (USDOI, FWS, 1994).

Bald Eagle The bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) is the only species of sea eagle that regularly occurs on the North American continent (USDOI, FWS, 1984). Its range extends from central Alaska
and Canada to northern Mexico. The bulk of the bald eagle’s diet is fish, though bald eagles will opportunistically take birds, reptiles, and mamma ls (USDOI, FWS, 1984). The historical nesting range of the bald eagle within the Southeast U. S. included the entire coastal plain and shores of major rivers and lakes. The current range is limite d, with most breeding pairs occurring in Florida and Louisiana, and some in South Carolina, Al abama, and east Texas. In 1997, 120 nests were known in Louisiana; only 3 nests occurred within 5 mi of the coast (Patrick, written communication, 1997). In 2007, about 300-400 nesting pairs were located in Louisiana. The majority of bald eagles is migratory and is onl y in Louisiana from about October 15 to about May 15 (Dunne, 2007). The bald eagle was listed as e ndangered in 1967 in response to the declines due to DDT and other organochlorines that a ffected the species’ reproduction (USDOI, FWS, 1984). Recovery may be slowed by human disturbance if it affects the abundance of preferable trees for nesting and perching. Preferred perch trees may be relatively large in diameter, height, surrounding percent forest cover, surrounding size of block of forest, height of surrounding canopy above the ground, height of perch above surrounding canopy, and size of the angle of open flight path to the perch (Buehler et al., 1992 ; Chandler et. al., 1995). For preferred nest trees, important features may be proximity to water (usual ly within 1/2 mile), a clear flight path to a close point on the water, an open view of the surrounding area and proximity to preferable perch trees. In July 1995, the FWS reclassified the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 states ( Federal Register , 1995b). The FWS expects to declassify the bird from the list completely in June 2007 (Dunne, 2007).

Brown Pelican The brown pelican ( Pelicanus occidentalis ) is one of two pelican species in North America. It feeds entirely upon fishes captured by plunge diving in coastal waters. Organochlorine pesticide pollution apparently contributed to the endangerm ent of the brown pelican. Organochlorines like DDT accumulate up the food web and reach their hi ghest concentrations in predators such as the brown pelican. The pesticides interfere with calci um metabolism, causing reduced calcification of egg shells, and potentially allowing the eggs to be crushed under the weight of an incubating parent. In recent years, there has been a marked increase in brown pelican populations within the former range of the species. The population of brown pelicans and their habitat in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, a nd points northward along the Atlantic Coast were removed from the endangered species list in 1985; however, within the remainder of the range, which includes coastal areas of Texas, Louisian a, and Mississippi, where populations are not secure, the brown pelican remains listed as endangered ( Federal Register , 1985b). In 2004, 16,501 nesting pairs produced an all-time high of 39,021 fledglings. Production decreased 35.2 percent in 2005 to 25,289 fledglings as a result of an oil spill at the West Breton Island colony6 caused by Tropical Storm Arlene and by the cu mulative effects of Hurricanes Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, and Rita. Ninety-five percent of production occurred west of the Mississippi River. Young brown pelicans there had reached fli ght stage at the time of Hurricane Katrina with no direct mortality at colonies. Conversely, brow n pelicans incubating eggs and caring for 5- to 6- week-old young east of the Mississippi River wh en Hurricane Katrina struck were impacted as eggs and young were washed away. Colonies ther e were repeatedly flooded by Tropical Storm Arlene and the hurricanes, causing fledgling mort ality. In addition, Hurricane Ivan in 2004 and
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 caused catastro phic destruction of barrier islands and brown pelican nesting colonies. Hurricane Katrina reduc ed the size of the Chandeleur Islands by 90 percent and completely washed away West Br eton Island, Mitchell Island, and Grassy Island (Huntnfish.com, 2007). Other major causes of dec line of the brown pelican are colony site erosion, disease, and human disturbance (Boggs, written communication, 2007). The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries submitted a request in March 1994 to the FWS to officially remove the eastern brown pelican from the endangered species list in Louisiana (Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, 1994).

Routine Impacts on Coastal and Marine Birds This section discusses the possible effects of r outine activities associated with a proposed action
in the WPA and CPA on coastal and marine bi rds of the GOM and its contiguous waters and wetlands. Federally listed endangere d or threatened bird species are included in this discussion with non-listed bird species because the potential im pacts are the same or very similar. Major, potential impact-producing factors for marine bi rds in the offshore environment include OCSrelated helicopter and service-vessel traffic and noise, air emissions, degradation of water quality, habitat degradation, discarded trash and debris from service-vessels and OCS structures, and structure lighting and presence. Any effects on bird s are especially grave for intensively managed populations. For example, endangered and threaten ed species may be harmed by any impact on viable reproductive population size or disturbance of a few key habitat factors.

Proposed Action Analysis
Noise The transportation or exchange of supplies, materials, and personnel between coastal infrastructure and offshore oil and gas structur es is accomplished with helicopters, aircraft, and boats and a variety of service vessels. It is projected that 400,000-900,000 helicopter operations related to a proposed action in the WPA, and 1,0 00,000-2,200,000 helicopter operations related to a proposed action in the CPA, would occur over the life of a proposed action. This is a rate of 10,000-22,500 annual helicopter operations in the WPA and 25,000-55,000 annual helicopter operations in the CPA. Service vessels would use selected nearshore and coastal (inland) navigation waterways, or corridors, and adhere to protocol set forth by the USCG for reduced vessel speeds within these inland areas. It is pr ojected that 94,000-155,000 service-vessel round trips related to a proposed action in the WPA, and 117,000-239,000 service-vessel round trips related to a proposed action in the CPA would occur in the life of a proposed action; this is a rate of 2,350-3,875 WPA service-vessels trips annuall y and 2,925-5,975 CPA service vessel trips annually.

Disturbances from OCS-related helicopter or service- vessel traffic to coastal birds can result from the mechanical noise or physical presence (or wake ) of the vehicle. This discussion applies to both federally listed endangered/threatened bird species and non-listed speci es since the effects are the same or very similar. The degree of distur bance exhibited by groups of coastal birds to the presence of air or vessel traffic is highly variable , depending upon the bird species in question, type of vehicle, altitude or distance of the vehicl e, the frequency of occurrence of the disturbance, and the season. Helicopter and service vessel tra ffic related to OCS activities could sporadically disturb feeding, resting, or nesting behavior. Di sturbance can also lead to a permanent desertion of active nests and even whole nest colonies, or of critical or preferred habitat, which could contribute to the relocation of a species or group to less favorable areas or to a decline of species through reproductive failure resulting from nest abandonment. Interruption of nesting activities7 such as nest building (sensitive to time budgets), fo raging for food for nestlings (sensitive to time and energy budgets), and incuba tion of eggs and naked nestlings (sensitive to time budgets) may result in reduced breeding success, measured by the ratio of birds fledged per nest to eggs hatched from a clutch. Impacts on whole nesting colonies of seabirds would be especially serious. When birds are flushed prior to or during migration, the energy cost could be great enough that they might not reach their destination on schedule or they may be more susceptible to diseases (Anderson, 1995). However, Nisbet (2000) reports that “there is no substantial evidence in the
scientific literature that human disturbance affe cts reproductive success or colony site occupation among terns. There is no scientific evidence that up flights, or ‘flushing,’ are adverse effects, except in circumstances where they allow pr edators to gain access to eggs or chicks.”

Waterfowl are more overtly responsive to noise than other birds and seem particularly responsive to aircraft, possibly because aerial predators frequently harass them (Bowles, 1995). The FAA and corporate helicopter policy advise helicopters to maintain a minimum altitude of 700 ft while in transit offshore and 500 ft while working be tween platforms. When flying over land, the specified minimum altitude is 1,000 ft over unpopulated areas or across coastlines and 2,000 ft over populated areas and biologically sensitive area s such as wildlife refuges and national parks. Many undisturbed coastal areas and refuges provide preferred and/or critical habitat for feeding, resting (or staging), and nesting birds. The effect of low-flying aircraft within the vicinity of aggregations of birds on the ground or on the wa ter typically results in mass disturbance and abandonment of the immediate area. However, pilo ts traditionally have taken great pride in not disturbing birds. Compliance to the specified minimum altitude requirements greatly reduces the
effects of aircraft disturbance on coastal and ma rine birds. The routine presence of aircraft at sufficiently high altitudes results in acclamation of birds to routine noise. As a result of inclement weather, about 10 percent of he licopter operations would occur at altitudes somewhat below the minimums listed above. Although these incident s are seconds in duration and sporadic in frequency, they can disrupt coastal bird behavior a nd, at worst, possibly result in habitat or nest abandonment. Birds in flight over water typical ly avoid helicopters. Low-flying aircraft may temporarily disrupt feeding or flight paths, incl uding low-altitude foraging trips where birds scan the ground for small prey or scan the water for sc hools of small pelagic fish. The routine presence and low speeds of service vessels within inland and coastal waterways would diminish the effects of disturbance from service vessels on nearshore and inland populations of coastal and marine birds. Nisbet (2000) reports that

. . . heart rates of Common Tern increased when recorded sounds associated with disturbance (alarm calls of terns or shorebirds , or aircraft noise) were played to them, but that responses declined in intensity after th e stimulus was repeated about 20 times. High tolerance levels to various types of human disturbance have been reported frequently in terns and have been interpreted as resulti ng from habituation. In my own studies of Common Tern, some individuals can be touched on the nest [after habituation] and
others stand on our head and s houlders . . . a few [Roseate Terns] now peck our heads or fingers. Terns also become tolerant to heavy boat traffic. Common Terns in New York ignored heavy boat traffic within a few meters of their nests . . . . Species in which adverse effects have been convincingly documented include pelicans [and] Doublecrested Cormorant . . . Most of the effects that have been documented convincingly...resulted from disturbance early in the nesting cycle, from promotion of predation, or both. There is little evidence of effects on productivity of gulls or herons.

Birds can lose eggs and young when predators attack nests after parents are flushed into flight by service-vessel noise. Overall breeding success (ratio of fledged birds per nest to hatched birds per nest) may be reduced. Chronic effects on breed ing are especially serious for endangered or threatened species because subse quent recovery may not occur.

Air Quality Degradation8 Contamination of wildlife by air emissions can o ccur in three ways: inhalation, absorption, and ingestion. Inhalation is the most common mode of contamination for birds (Newman, 1980). This discussion applies to both federally listed endangered/threatened bird species and non-listed species since the effects are the same or very si milar. The major effects of air pollution include direct mortality, debilitating injury, disease, physiological stress, anemia, hypocalcemic condition, bioaccumulation of air pollutants with associated decrease in re sistance to debilitating factors, and population declines (Newman, 1979). Di rect effects can be either acute, such as sudden mortality from hydrogen sulfide, or chronic, such as fluorosis from fluoride emissions. The magnitude of effect, acute or chronic, is a f unction of the pollutant, its ambient concentration, pathway of exposure, duration of exposure, a nd the age, sex, reproductive condition, nutritional status, and health of the animal at the ti me of exposure (Newman, 1980). Pollutants will accumulate in tissues with unusually low temperatures, low blood content, and low blood flow. Fatty tissues in any organism are especially serious sinks for nonpolar, non-ionic, hydrophobic pollutants. Such pollutants are probably transm itted up the food web without amplification or
diminution in concentration. The total amounts tran sferred up the web probably relate to the total fat content of the components of the food web. Seabirds usually feed in flight and need only resupply moderate protein and fat stores. Howeve r, songbirds and shorebirds cannot feed over barriers like the open water of the GOM and need to store up large amounts of fat before flight over them. Such fat stores are especially sensitiv e to accumulation of hydrophobic contaminants. Top predators on trans-Gulf migrants, such as the breeding peregrine falcons on offshore platforms, are somewhat sensitive to accumulation of such contaminants but the toxins are no threat compared with the historical notorious effects of polychlorinated insecticides on egg-shell thinning in top bird predators such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. For metals in air emissions, chemical composition as well as size of particulate compounds has been shown to influence the toxicity levels in animals. Par ticulate size affects retention time and clearance from and deposition in the respiratory tract (Newman, 1981). Migratory birds may be sensitive because of sustained high ventilation rates required for flight.

Levels of sulfur oxide (mainly sulfur dioxide, SO 2 ) emissions from hydrocarbon combustion from
OCS-related activities are of concern in relation to birds. Research specific to birds has elucidated
both acute and chronic effects from SO 2 inhalation (Fedde and Kuhlmann, 1979; Okuyama et al., 1979). Due to their lack of tracheal submucosal glands, birds appear to have more tolerance for
inhaled SO 2 than most mammals (Llacuna et al., 1993; Okuyama et al., 1979). This suggestion stems from laboratory investigations where the test subject was the domestic chicken, and results from these studies are not necessarily applicable to wild bird species. Acute exposure of birds to 100 ppm SO 2 produced no alteration in heart rate, blood pressure, lung tidal volume, respiratory frequency, arterial blood gases, or blood pH.

Exposure to 100 ppm or less of SO 2 did not affect respiratory mucous secretion. Exposure to 1,000 ppm SO 2 caused mucus to increase and drip from th e mouths of birds, but lungs appeared normal. Exposure to 5,000 ppm resulted in gross pathological changes in airways and lungs, and then death (Fedde and Kuhlmann, 1979). Chroni c (two week) exposure of birds to three
concentrations of SO 2 for 16 hr/day for various total periods showed a statistical change in 10
cellular characteristics and resulted in cellular cha nges characteristic of persistent bronchitis in 69 percent of the tests done (Okuyama et al., 1979).

The indirect effects of air emissions on wild life include food web contamination and habitat degradation, as well as adverse synergistic effe cts of air emissions with natural and other
manmade stresses. Air emissions can cause shifts in trophic structure that alter habitat structure and change local food supplies (Newman, 1980). The acidification of waterbodies affects the trophic structure by changing the abundance of phytoplankton and zooplankton. This change in the base of the food chain can then affect the pr ey species that birds rely on for feeding and reproduction. A similar action takes place in fore sts, affecting bird habitat (Environmental Science and Research, 1998). Acid deposition affe cts some inland waterbodies but typically has
little effect on marine waters.9 Air pollutants may cause a change in the distribu tion of certain bird species (e.g., Newman, 1977; Llacuna et al., 1993). Migratory bird species will avoid potentially suitable habitat in areas of heavy air pollution in favor of cleaner areas if available (Newman, 1979). The abundance and distribution of passerine birds, both active and sedentary, and migratory species, as well as nonpasserine and nonmigratory varieties, are also greatly affected by natural factors such as weather and food supply. Therefore, any reduction in the number of birds within a given locale does not have a diagnostic certainty po inting to air emissions (Newman, 1980).

Emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere fro m the activities associated with a proposed action
would have minimum effects on offshore and onshore air quality because of the prevailing atmospheric conditions, emission heights and rate s, and pollutant concentrations. The U.S. ambient air quality standards for NO 2 , SO 2 , and PM 10 are 100, 80, and 50 micrograms/m 3 , respectively. Estimated increases in onshor e annual average concentrations of NO 2 , SO 2 , and

PM 10 would be less than 0.42, 0.04, and 0.02 micrograms/m 3 , respectively, per modeled steady state concentrations, only a tiny fraction of th e limits. These concentrations are far below
concentrations that could harm coastal and marine birds. The most likely pathway for air pollution to affect birds is through acidification of inland waterbodies and soils and a subsequent change in trophic structure (Environmental Science and Research, 1998).

Water Quality Degradation This discussion applies to both federally listed e ndangered/threatened bird species and non-listed species since the effects are the same or very similar. Expected degradation of coastal and estuarine water quality resulting from of OCS-related discharges may affect coastal birds directly by means of acute or chronic toxic effects from ingestion or contact, or indirectly through the contamination of food sources. Operational disch arges or runoff in the offshore environment could also affect seabirds (e.g., laughing gulls) th at remain and feed in the vicinity of offshore OCS structures and platforms. These impacts could also be both direct and indirect. Many seabirds feed and nest in the Gulf, so water quality may affect breeding success also (measured as the ratio of fledged birds per nest to hatched birds per nest).

Maintenance dredging oper ations remove several million cubic feet of material, resulting in localized impacts (primarily increased turbidity and resuspended contaminants) during the duration of the operations. Water clarity will decr ease over time within navigation channels used for vessel operations and within pipeline canal s due to continuous sediment influx from bank erosion, natural widening, and re introduction of dredged material back into surrounding waters. A proposed action would result in a very small incr emental contribution to the need for channel
maintenance. Coastal and marine birds that feed exclusively within these locations would likely experience chronic, sublethal physiological st ress. Some coastal and marine birds would experience a decrease in viability and reproductive success that would be indistinguishable from natural population variations.

Habitat Degradation Habitat can be described as the physical environm ent and as the plant substrates used by a bird.
The northern GOM and areas inland from it have a la rge diversity of habitats for birds of all types, including migrants, wintering birds, and breeding birds. The greatest negative impact to coastal and marine birds is loss or degradation of preferred or critical habitat. This discussion applies to both federally listed endangered/threat ened bird species and non-listed species since the effects are the same or very similar. The extent of bird displacement resulting from habitat loss is highly variable between different species, based upon specific habitat requirements and availability of similar habitat in the area. Ha bitat requirements for most bird species are incompletely known. Bird species with similar habitat may crowd each other, depending on the
amount of available habitat c ontrolling bird population sizes ve rsus other types of population regulation.10 Generally, the destruction of wetland habita t from OCS pipeline landfalls and onshore construction may displace localized groups or popu lations of birds. Environmental regulations require replanting and restorati on of wetlands destroyed by pipelaying barges and associated onshore pipeline installation. As these birds move to undisturbed areas of similar habitat, their presence may augment habitat utilization pressure on these selected areas as a result of intra- and interspecific competition for space or food. Pipelin e landfalls and terminal s, and other onshore OCS-related construction, can destroy coastal bi rd feeding or nesting habitat and can displace coastal bird populations from affected areas. S eabird nesting colonies are especially sensitive and should always be avoided by construction activiti es. Onshore pipelines cross a wide variety of coastal environments, including freshwater marsh and canals, and can therefore affect certain species generally not associated with marine or estuarine systems. These species include certain waders, marsh birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl . For a proposed action in the WPA, 0-1 new pipeline landfalls and 0-1 new gas processing plants are projected. For a proposed action in the CPA, 0-1 new pipeline landfalls and 0-1 new gas processing plants are projected.

The analysis of the potential impacts to coastal environments concludes that a proposed action in the WPA or CPA is not expected to adversely alter barrier beach configurations significantly beyond existing, ongoing impacts in very locali zed areas downdrift of artificially jettied and
maintained channels. Grand Isle is the only inhabited beach area on the Louisiana coast, but many unoccupied beaches occur. Initial adverse impacts and more secondary impacts of pipeline and navigation canals are the most significant OCS-re lated and proposed-action-related impacts to wetlands. Initial impacts are locally significant and largely limited to where OCS-related canals and channels pass through wetlands. Secondary im pacts may have substantial, progressive, and cumulative adverse impacts to the hydrologic basin or subbasin in which they are found.

Debris Coastal and marine birds are susceptible to en tanglement in floating, submerged, and beached marine debris; specifically in plastics discarde d from both offshore sources and land-derived litter and waste disposal (Heneman and the Center for Environmental Education, 1988). This discussion applies to both federally listed endangered/threatened bird species and non-listed species since the effects are the same or very similar. Studies in Florida reported that 80 percent of brown pelicans showed signs of injury fr om entanglement with fishing gear (Clapp and Buckley, 1984). In addition, seabirds ingest pl astic particles and other marine debris more frequently than do any other taxon (Ryan, 1990). In teraction with plastic materials may lead to permanent injuries and death. Ingested debris ma y have three basic effects on seabirds: irritation and blockage of the digestive tract; impairment of foraging efficiency; and release of toxic chemicals, including lethal and chronically da maging substances (Ryan, 1990; Sileo et al., 1990a). The effects of plastic ingestion may last a lifetime and may include physical deterioration due to malnutrition; plastics often cause a distention of the stomach, thus preventing its contraction and simulating a sense of satiation (Ryan, 1988). Some birds also feed plastic debris to their young, which could reduce survival ra tes and breeding success. Accumulation of plastic debris near foraging areas for seabird nesting col onies would be devastating to a whole cohort of fledging birds, especially industrial substances not intended to be associated with food consumption and other human activities where a health hazard would result. The chemical toxicity of some plastics can be high, posing a hazard in addition to obstruction and impaction of the gut (Fry et al., 1987). Sileo et al. (1990b) found that the prevalence of ingested plastic found within the gut of examined birds varied great ly among species. Species that seldom regurgitate indigestible stomach contents are most prone to the aforementioned adverse effects (Ryan, 1990). Within the GOM, these include the phalaropes, petr els, storm petrels, and shearwaters. It is expected that coastal and marine birds will seldo m become entangled in or ingest OCS-related trash and debris as a result of MMS prohibitions on the disposal of equipment, containers, and other materials into offshore waters by lesse es (30 CFR 250.40). In addition, MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 100-220 (101 Statute 1458), which prohib its the disposal of any plastics, garbage,
and other solid wastes at sea or in coastal wate rs, went into effect January 1, 1989, and is enforced by the USCG.11 Structures Every spring, migratory land birds, including neotro pical passerines that cannot feed at the water surface or rest there, cross the GOM from wint ering grounds in Latin America to breeding grounds north of the GOM. Some birds use offshore platforms as stopover sites for this migration, which may enhance fitness. This discussion applies to both federally listed endangered/threatened bird species and non-listed sp ecies since the effects are the same or very
similar.

Migrants sometimes arrive at certain platforms shor tly after nightfall or later and proceed to circle those platforms (the phenomenon is called a nocturn al circulation event) for variable periods ranging from minutes to hours. Russell (2005) notes that “because of the anecdotal nature of our circulation observations, we are reluctant even to speculate about the average duration of participation in circulation or the typical energe tic consequences of participating in these events.” The maximum observed number of birds participa ting in these circulations at one time at one platform was measured at 1,260 individuals. No cturnal circulation events were only recorded 73 times and on only five of the nine platforms studied in the spring of 2000. No nocturnal circulation was recorded for the other four platfo rms. In some of the recorded events, only one bird was observed (Russell, 2005). More than 100 ci rculating birds were recorded for 18 of the 73
events. Circulations increase the risks for birds to collide with platform structures and with each other. Starving, exhausted, circulating birds ma y land on the platforms. Birds that dropped out of
nocturnal circulations sometimes became trapped in well-lit interior areas of platforms, and these birds appeared sublethally stressed (Russell, 2005). However, a total of 140 birds on the nine platforms were recorded as d ead because of starvation during the entire spring of 2000 study period (Russell, 2005). It is projected that 28-41 plat forms are projected to be installed as a result of a proposed action in the WPA, and 28-39 platforms are projected to be installed as a result of a proposed action in the CPA. Nocturnal circulation on these platforms is expected to have minimal and mostly sublethal impacts on migrating bird populations. This conclusion results from the confirmed low mortality from starvation for all birds that landed on the platforms examined by Russell (2005) and also results from the suggested sublethal stress in birds that dropped out of circulation observed on the platforms by Russell ( 2005). The advantage of stopovers is expected to make up for any losses to bird popula tions from the nocturnal circulations.

Summary and Conclusion The majority of effects resulting from a proposed action in the WPA or CPA on endangered/threatened and nonendangered/nonthreat ened coastal and marine birds are expected to be sublethal: behavioral effects; sublethal e xposure to or intake of OCS-related contaminants or discarded debris; temporary disturbances; and displacement of localized groups from impacted habitats. Chronic sublethal stress, however, is ofte n undetectable in birds. As a result of stress, individuals may weaken, facilitating infection a nd disease; then, migratory species may not have the strength to reach their destination. Noctur nal circulation around platforms may create acute sublethal stress from energy loss and increase the risk of collisions, while stopovers on platforms would reduce energy loss. No significant habitat impacts are expected to occur directly from routine activities resulting from a proposed ac tion. Secondary impacts from pipeline and navigation canals to coastal habitats will occu r over the long-term and may ultimately displace species from traditional sites to alternative sites.

Accidental Impacts on Coastal and Marine Birds This section discusses the impacts of accidental ev ents associated with a proposed action in the
WPA or CPA on coastal and marine birds.

Oil Spills Oil spills pose the greatest potential impact to coastal and marine birds. Pneumonia is not
uncommon in oiled birds and can occur when bird s, attempting to clean their feathers through preening, inhale droplets of oil. Exposure to oil can cause severe and fatal kidney damage12 (reviewed by Frink, 1994). Ingestion of oils might reduce the function of the immune system and, thus, reduce resistance to infectious diseases (Leighton, 1990). Ingested oil may cause toxic destruction of red blood cells and varying degr ees of anemia (Leighton, 1990). Stress, trauma, and shock enhance the effects of exposure and poisoning. The pathological conditions noted in autopsies may be directly caused by petroleum hydr ocarbons or may be a final effect in a chain of events with oil as the initial cause and generalized stress as an intermediate cause (Clark, 1984). Low levels of oil could stress birds by interferi ng with food detection, feeding impulses, predator avoidance, territory definiti on, homing of migratory species, susceptibility to physiological disorders, disease resistance, growth rates, reproduction, and respiration.

If physical oiling of individuals or local groups of birds occurs, some degree of both acute and chronic physiological stress associated with direct and secondary uptake of oil would be expected. Small coastal spills, pipeline spills, a nd spills resulting from accidents in navigation waterways can contact and affect many of the diffe rent groups of coastal and marine birds, most commonly marsh birds, waders, waterfowl, and certain shorebirds. Some deaths from these groups are to be expected. Raptors, such as th e bald eagle and peregrine falcon, feed upon weakened or dead birds (and fish, in the case of the eagle) and as a result may become physically oiled or affected by the ingestion of the oiled prey. Pelicans are active sw immers and plunge dive for prey. They are therefore susceptible to bo th physical oiling and secondary effects via ingestion of oiled prey (i.e., fish).

Plovers congregate and feed along tidally exposed banks and shorelines, following the tide out and foraging at the water’s edge. They have shor t stout bills and often chase mobile prey rather than probing well into the sediment with long slender bills like many birds of the sandpiper family. They may peck at infauna just below th e sediment surface. Plovers can physically oil themselves while foraging on oiled shores or secondarily contaminate themselves through ingestion of oiled intertidal sediments and prey. Oil will reach the intertid al beach feeding areas
before it will contact nests on the fore dunes. The least tern captures fish by means of shallow splash diving and surface dipping techniques. Some physical oiling could occur during these dives, as well as secondary toxic effects through the uptake of prey. It is possible that some death of endangered/threatened (as well as nonendange red and nonthreatened) species could occur, especially if spills occur during winter months when raptors and plovers are most common along the coastal Gulf or if spills contact preferred or critical habitat. Recruitment through successful reproduction is expected to take several years, depending upon the species and existing
conditions.

Some birds are merely stained as a result of their foraging behaviors (Vermeer and Vermeer, 1975). Redwing blackbirds depend on sti ff cattails to support their nests, so injury to such plants could result in reproductive failure. Birds can ing est oil when feeding on contaminated food items or drinking contaminated water. Oil contamination will affect the birds’ prey. Prey populations after the spill in the Arthur Kill shipping lane (January 1990, south coast of New York) had not returned to normal a year after th e spill (Maccarone and Brzorad, 1995).

Geese and herbivorous ducks feed on plants, at a lower trophic level than the other species of waterbirds and may not suffer damaging effects when oil is biomagnified, or at least not to the same degree (Maccarone and Brzorad, 1994). They still may encounter lower food availability, owing to the localized destruction of aquatic vegetation. Birds, su ch as ibises, that sift through
mud and other sediments for small invertebrates may be exposed to high toxin levels in the invertebrates (Maccarone and Brzorad, 1994). Ch apman (1981) noted that oil on the beach from
the 1979 Ixtoc spill caused habitat shifts by the birds. Many birds had to feed in less productive feeding habitats. Similar observations were made for wading birds after the Arthur Kill spill Maccarone and Brzorad, 1995). Composition of prey populations changed after the spill.

Lush vegetation helps to conceal sparsely placed n ests and their contents from potential predators. Shoreline vegetation may die after prolonged exposu re to water contaminated with oil. With13 destruction of vegetation, aerial predators may ha ve easier access to eggs and chicks (Maccarone and Brzorad, 1994). Many species have inherently low reproductive potential, slowing recovery from impacts. However, long-term studies show that seabirds only occasionally encounter breeding catastrophes, such as those that r esult from massive avian egg predation. Low reproductive potential is matche d by low natural mortality.

A population that endures oil-spill impacts may have the disadvantage of a long-flying distance to habitat of neighboring colonies. Otherwise, nei ghboring colonies’ habitat could provide refuge for a bird population fleeing impacts and be a source of recruitment to a population recovering from impacts (Cairns and Elliot, 1987; Trivelpi ece et al., 1986; Samuels and Ladino, 1983/1984) if refugees are welcome. However, this may not always be the case. Population recovery following destruction of a local breeding colony or a large group of wintering migrants would likely occur within 1-2 yearly breeding cycles. For many coastal and marine species, spills may delay the maturation and reproduction process in ju veniles, and this could cause a decrease in reproductive success for at least one season (Butler et al., 1988). Disruption of pair bonds and altered cycles of reproductive hormones might al so affect reproductive success for one breeding season (Leighton, 1990).

Oil-Spill Response and Cleanup Activities Oil-spill cleanup methods often require heav y trafficking of beaches and wetland areas, application of oil dispersants and bioremediation chemicals, and the distribution and collection of oil containment booms and absorbent material. This activity and the presence of humans, along with boats, aircraft, and other t echnological creations, will also disturb coastal birds after a spill unless properly regulated. Investigations have s hown that oil-dispersant mixtures pose a threat like that of oil to successful reproduction in bi rds (Albers, 1979; Albers and Gay, 1982). The external exposure of adult birds to oil/ dispersan t emulsions may reduce chick survival more than exposure to oil alone would; however, successful dispersal of a spill will generally reduce the probability of exposure of coastal and marine birds to oil (Butler et al., 1988). It is possible that changes in size of an established breeding popula tion may also be a result of disturbance in the form of personnel for shoreline cleanup, monitoring efforts, or the intensified research activity after oil spills unless these activities are properl y regulated (Maccarone and Brzorad, 1994). As noted by Nisbet (2000), studies show that seabirds are not easily disturbed by human activities. Studies are indicating that rescue and cleaning of oiled birds makes no effective contribution to conservation, except conceivably for species with a small world population (Clark, 1978 and 1984). A number of studies indicate that current rehabilitation techniques may not be effective in returning healthy birds to the wild (Anderson et al., 1996; Boersma, 1995; Sharp, 1995 and 1996). However, a more recent study questions this conc lusion. It states that more long-term rigorous
studies of rehabilitated and released birds of va rious species relative to unoiled birds are needed (Russell et al., 2003). Methods of rehabilitation depend on the species. Different species require different treatment protocols. Success depends on th e nature of the spill and the sophistication of the treatment protocols, which are constantly being updated by experience (Russell et al., 2003). Preventative methods such as scaring birds from the pa th of an approaching oil slick or the use of booms to protect sensitive colonies in an emer gency produce mixed results, depending on methods (Clark, 1984). Birds may habituate to the scare if it is always present. A new method of using unmanned (less expensive) scare techniques uses radar to detect the approach of birds. The deterrent device is set off only when birds are detected near a spill (Ronconi et al., 2004).

Summary and Conclusion Oil spills from a proposed action in the WPA or CPA pose the greatest potential direct and indirect impacts to coastal and marine birds. Bi rds that are heavily oiled are usually killed. If physical oiling of individuals or local groups of birds occurs, some degree of both acute and chronic physiological stress associated with direct and secondary uptake of oil would be expected. Small coastal spills, pipeline spills, a nd spills from accidents in navigated waterways can contact and affect the different groups of coastal and marine birds, most commonly marsh birds, waders, waterfowl, and certain shorebirds. Lightly oiled birds can sustain tissue and organ14 damage from oil ingested during feeding and groomi ng or from oil that is inhaled. Stress, trauma, and shock enhance the effects of exposure and pois oning. Low levels of oil could stress birds by interfering with food detection, feeding impulses, predator avoidance, territory definition, homing of migratory species, susceptibility to physiological disorders, disease resistance, growth rates, reproduction, and respiration. Reproductive success can be affected by the toxins in oil. Indirect effects occur by fouling of nesting habitat, and displacement of individuals, breeding pairs, or populations to less favorable habitats. Compe tition may displace refugee seabirds from all
habitats.

New research, experience, and testing will help the efficacy of rehabilitation of oiled birds and probably improve scare methods that will keep birds away from an oil slick. Rehabilitation can be significant to the survival of thr eatened and endangered bird species.

Dispersants used in spill cleanup activity can have toxic effects similar to oil on the reproductive success of coastal and marine birds. The, air, vehicle, and foot traffic that takes place during shoreline clean up activity can disturb nesting popul ations and degrade or destroy habitat if not properly regulated.

Analysis of Spill Risk to Coastal Birds The risk of contact to coastal birds from spills re lated to proposed action operations is dependent upon the likelihood that a spill occurs and the likelihood that the spilled oil reaches the shore areas inhabited or used by these birds.

Risk from Offshore Spills >1,000 bbl
The risk of contact to coastal birds from offs hore spills >1,000 bbl is dependent upon (1) the likelihood that oil spills occurring from proposed action operations could be transported to the
shoreline identified as coastal bird habitats and (2) oil-spill contact occurs during the period that specific coastal birds are present in the area. Figures 4-22 through 4-31 identify the shoreline areas representing identified coastal bird type habi tat that were analyzed for spill risk and the results of MMS’s model trajectory simulation. Probabilities shown represent the likelihood that a spill >1,000 bbl would occur offshore as a result of a proposed action and the slick would reach various coastal bird habitats during the periods when the birds are known to use the area and within 10 days after the spill incident. The probab ilities of occurrence and contact within 10 days for all species and habitats modeled ra nge between <0.5 and 35 percent.

In addition to accounting for wind and current transport and risk of spill occurrence, the combined probabilities incorporate the length of time each coastal bird type occupies the identified habitat. For example, the whooping cr ane occupies the identified habitat for 6 months out of the year. The chance of a spill occurring offs hore and the slick reaching this habitat within 10 days during those 6 months is calculated to be <0.5-1 percent. In contrast, waterfowl are found everywhere along the Gulf’s shoreline year round; thus, the risk of spill occurrence and contact is higher (23-35% from a proposed action in the CPA and 9-14% from a proposed action in the WPA). Given the widespread distribution of waterfo wl throughout the Gulf Coast, if an oil spill from a proposed action were to occur and reach land, waterfowl habitat would likely be
contacted.

Risk from Offshore Spills <1,000 bbl About 400-21,000 bbl of oil is estimated to be spilled in offshore waters over a 40-year period from the estimated 800-1,500 spill events as a result of a proposed action in the WPA, and about 5,500-26,500 bbl of oil is estimated to be sp illed in offshore waters from the estimated 2,700- 4,500 spills as a result of a proposed action in the CPA; most (about 97%) of these spills would

be # 1 bbl. These volumes include volumes from 1-2 sp ill incidents in the size group >1,000 bbl and one spill incident in the size group ∃ 10,000 bbl. While <1 spill is estimated for some sizes of spills ( Table 4-35 ), there is always a finite chance of any size spill occurring. Therefore, the possibility of at least one spill of each size is included in the upper spill volume estimates.15 For spills <1,000 bbl, only those >50 bbl would be expected to have a chance of persisting as a cohesive slick long enough for the slick to r each land. Few offshore spills 50-1,000 bbl are estimated to occur as a result of a proposed action, and few of these slicks are expected to occur proximate to State waters and to reach shore. Should a slick from such a spill make landfall, the volume of oil remaining in the slick is expected to be small.

Risk from Coastal Spills Approximately 61-136 spills are estimated to o ccur within Gulf coastal waters from activities supporting the WPA and CPA proposed actions co mbined; most (about 90%) of these spills would be <1 bbl. The most likely locations of the estimated 6-15 coastal spills >1 bbl would be proximate to the major oil pipeline shore faciliti es. Except for two 3,000-bbl spills estimated to
occur in Louisiana and Texas coastal waters under the high resource-estimate scenario, MMS estimates that coastal spills ∃ 1,000 bbl resulting from a proposed action have a low probability of

occurrence.

Based on the assumption that spill occurrence is proportional to the volume of oil handled, bird populations located near the coastal waters of the Galveston/Houston/Texas City area have the greatest risk of being contacted by coastal spills related to a proposed action in the WPA. A total of 80 percent of all oil estimated to be produced as a result of a proposed action in the WPA is projected to be brought into this area. Bird populations in eastern Louisiana, from Atchafalaya Bay to east of the Mississippi River, including Barataria Bay, have the greatest risk of being contacted by spills from operations related to a CPA proposed action. The greatest risk of contact would be from the assumed 3,000-bbl spills should they occur within or near the identified habitat
areas when the birds are o ccupying those habitats.

SEA TURTLES The USFWS has responsibility for regulating sea tur tles when they come ashore to nest. Nesting habitat of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) and the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) may be impacted by the proposed action. Although three other species of endangered sea turtles occur in the Gulf of Mexico, th eir nesting is not expected to be affected by the proposed action.

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Loggerhead nesting along the Gulf Coast occurs primarily along the Florida Panhandle, although some nesting has been reported from Texas through Alabama as well (USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 1991b). Loggerhead turtles have b een primarily sighted in waters over the continental shelf, although many surface sightings of this species have also been made over the outer slope beyond the 1,000-m (3,281-ft) isobath. Sightings of loggerheads in waters over the continental slope suggest that they may be in tr ansit through these waters to distant foraging sites or while seeking warmer waters during the winter. Although loggerheads are widely distributed during both summer and winter, their abundance in surface waters over the slope was greater during winter than in summer (Mullin and Hoggard, 2000).

Species/Critical Habitat Description The loggerhead sea turtle was listed as a threatened species on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800). This species inhabits the continental shelves and est uarine environments along the margins of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, and within the continental U.S., and it nests from Louisiana to Virginia. The major nesting areas include coast al islands of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and the Atlantic and Gulf Coast s of Florida, with the bulk of the nesting occurring on the Atlantic Coast of Florida. De velopmental habitat for small juveniles is the pelagic waters of the North Atla ntic and the Mediterranean Sea.

There is no critical habitat designated for the loggerhead sea turtle.16 Life History Loggerheads mate in late March through early J une in the Southeastern U.S. Females emerge from the surf, excavate a nest cav ity in the sand, and deposit a mean clutch size of 100-126 eggs. Individual females nest multiple times during a n esting season, with a mean of 4.1 nests/nesting individual (Murphy and Hopkins, 1984). Nesting mi grations for an individual female loggerhead are usually on an interval of 2-3 years but can vary from 1 to 7 years (Dodd, 1988). Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the western Atlantic nesting aggregations are believed to lead a pelagic existence in the North Atlantic gyre for as long as 7-12 years or more, but there is some variation in habitat use by individuals at all life stages. Turtles in this ear ly life history stage are called pelagic immatures. Stra nding records indicate that when pelagic immature loggerheads reach a 40- to 60-cm (16- to 24-in) straight-lin e carapace length they begin to recruit to coastal
inshore and nearshore waters of the continenta l shelf throughout the U.S. Atlantic and GOM.

Benthic immature loggerheads, the life stage follo wing the pelagic immature stage, have been found from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to southe rn Texas, and occasionally strand on beaches in northeastern Mexico. Large benthic immature logge rheads (70-91 cm, 28-36 in) represent a larger proportion of the strandings and in-water captur es along the south and western coasts of Florida as compared with the rest of the coast. Bent hic immature loggerheads foraging in northeastern U.S. waters are known to migrate southward in the fall as water temperatures cool (Epperly et al., 1995; Keinath, 1993; Morreale and Standora, 1999; Shoop and Kenney, 1992) and migrate northward in spring. Past literature gave an estim ated age at maturity of 21-35 years (Frazer and Ehrhart, 1985; Frazer et al., 1994) and the benthi c immature stage as lasting at least 10-25 years. However, in 2001 the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center reviewed the literature and constructed growth curves from new data, estimating ages of maturity ranging from 20 to 38 years and benthic immature stage lengths from 14 to 32 years. Juveniles are omnivorous and forage on crabs, mollusks, jellyfish, and vegeta tion at or near the surface (Dodd, 1988). Subadult and adult loggerheads are primarily coastal and ty pically prey on benthic invertebrates such as mollusks and decapod crustaceans in hard bottom habitats.

Population Dynamics Loggerhead sea turtles occur throughout the temp erate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans and are the most abundant species of sea turtle occurring in U.S. waters. Loggerhead sea turtles concentrate their n esting in the north and south temperate zones and subtropics, but they generally do not nest in tropical areas of Central America, northern South America, and the Old World (Magnuson et al., 1990).

In the western Atlantic, most loggerhead sea turtles nest in the geographic area ranging from
North Carolina to the Florida Panhandle. There ar e five western Atlantic subpopulations, divided geographically as follows: (1) a northern nesting subpopulation, occurring from North Carolina to

northeast Florida at about 29 Ε N. latitude (approximately 7,500 nests in 1998); (2) a south Florida nesting subpopulation, occurring from 29 Ε N. latitude on the east coast to Sarasota on the west coast (approximately 83,400 nests in 1998); (3) a Florida Panhandle nesting subpopulation, occurring at Eglin Air Force Ba se and the beaches near Panama City, Florida (approximately 1,200 nests in 1998); (4) a Yucatán nesting subpopulation, occurring on the eastern Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico (Márquez, 1990) (approximately 1,000 nests in 1998) (TEWG, 2000); and (5) a Dry Tortugas nesting subpopulation, occurring in the islands of the Dry Tortugas, near Key West, Florida (approximately 200 nests per year) (USDOC, NMFS, 2001). Natal homing of females to the nesting beach provides the ba rrier between these subpopulations, preventing recolonization with turtles from other nesting beaches.

Based on the available data, it is difficult to estimate the size of the loggerhead sea turtle population in the U.S. or its territorial waters . There is, however, general agreement that the number of nesting females provides a useful inde x of the species’ population size and stability at this life stage. Nesting data collected on i ndex nesting beaches in the U.S. from 1989 to 1998 represent the best dataset available to index the population size of loggerhead sea turtles.17 However, an important caveat for population trends analysis based on nesting beach data is that this may reflect trends in adult nesting fema les but may not reflect overall population growth rates. Given this caveat, between 1989 and 1998, the total number of nests laid along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts ranged from 53,014 to 92,182 annually, with a mean of 73,751. On average, 90.7 percent of these nests were from th e south Florida subpopula tion, 8.5 percent were from the northern subpopulation, and 0.8 percent were from the Florida Panhandle nest sites. There is limited nesting throughout the GOM west of Florida, but it is not known to which subpopulation these nesting females belong.

The number of nests in the northern subpopulation from 1989 to 1998 was 4,370-7,887, with a 10-year mean of 6,247 nests. With each female producing an average of 4.1 nests in a nesting season, the average number of nesting females pe r year in the northern subpopulation was 1,524. The total nesting and nonnesting adult female popul ation is estimated as 3,810 adult females in the northern subpopulation (TEWG, 1998 and 2000) . The northern subpopulation, based on number of nests, has been classified as stable or declining (TEWG, 2000). Another consideration adding to the vulnerability of the northern subpopul ation is that NMFS scientists estimate that the northern subpopulation produces 65 percent males, while the south Florida subpopulation is estimated to produce 80 percent females (USDOC, NMFS, 2001).

The southeastern U.S. nesting aggregation is of great importance on a global scale and is second in size only to the nesting aggregation on isla nds in the Arabian Sea off Oman (Ross, 1979; Ehrhart, 1989; USDOC, NMFS and USDOI, FWS, 1991b). The global importance of the southeast U.S. nesting aggregation of loggerheads is especially important because the status of the Oman colony has not been ev aluated recently, but it is located in an area of the world where it is highly vulnerable to disruptive events such as political upheavals, wars, catastrophic oil spills, and lack of strong protections (Meylan et al., 1995).

Status and Distribution Ongoing threats to the western Atlantic loggerh ead populations include incidental takes from dredging, commercial trawling, longline fisheries, a nd gillnet fisheries; loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; nest predation by native and nonnative predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris ; watercraft strikes; and disease.

Loggerhead sea turtles face numerous threats from natural causes. The five known subpopulations of loggerhead sea turtles in the north west Atlantic that nest in the southeastern U.S. are subject to fluctuations in the numbe r of young produced annually because of natural phenomena, such as hurricanes, as well as human-re lated activities. There is a significant overlap
between hurricane seasons in the Caribbean Se a and northwest Atlantic Ocean (June to November) and the loggerhead sea turtle nesti ng season (March to November). Hurricanes can have potentially disastrous effects on the survival of eggs in sea turtle nests. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew affected turtle nests over a 90-mi lengt h of coastal Florida. All of the eggs were destroyed by storm surges on beaches that were closes t to the eye of this hurricane (Milton et al., 1994). On Fisher Island near Miami, Florida, 69 pe rcent of the eggs did not hatch after Hurricane Andrew, likely because of an inhibition of gas ex change between the eggshell and the submerged nest environment resulting from the storm surge. Nests from th e northern subpopulation were destroyed by hurricanes that made landfall in No rth Carolina in the mid- to late 1990’s. Sand
accretion and rainfall that result from these stor ms can appreciably reduce hatchling success. Recent, very active hurricane seasons, and partic ularly the 2004 and 2005 seasons that caused massive damage all along the Gulf Coast, have no doubt continued to greatly stress sea turtle populations in the area. These natural phenomena pr obably have significant, adverse effects on the size of specific year classes, particularly given the increasing frequency and intensity of
hurricanes in the Caribbean Sea and northwest Atlantic Ocean.

Kemps’ ridley sea turtle18 The nearshore waters of the GOM are believed to provide important developmental habitat for juvenile Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtl es. Ogren (1988) suggests that the Gulf Coast, from Port Aransas, Texas, through Cedar Key, Flor ida, represents the primary habitat for subadult ridleys in the northern GOM. Stomach contents of Kemp's ridleys along the lower Texas coast consisted of a predominance of nearshore crabs and mollusks, as well as fish, shrimp, and other foods considered shrimp fishery discards (Shave r, 1991). Analyses of stomach contents from sea turtles stranded on upper Texas beaches apparently suggest similar nearshore foraging behavior (Plotkin, 1995).

Species/Critical Habitat Description The Kemp’s ridley was listed as endangered on December 2, 1970. Internationally, the Kemp’s ridley is considered the most endangered sea turtle . Kemp’s ridleys nest in daytime aggregations, known as arribadas, primarily at Rancho Nuevo, a stretch of beach in Mexico, Tamaulipas State. The species occurs mainly in coastal areas of the GOM and the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Occasional individuals reach European waters. Adul ts of this species are usually confined to the GOM, although adult-sized individuals sometimes are found on the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S.

There is no designated critical habitat for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle.

Life History Remigration of females to the nesting beach vari es from annually to every four years, with a mean of two years (TEWG, 1998). Nesting occurs from April into July and is essentially limited to the beaches of the western GOM, near Ranc ho Nuevo in southern Tamaulipas, Mexico. The mean clutch size for Kemp's ridleys is 100 eggs/n est, with an average of 2.5 nests/female/season.

Juvenile/subadult Kemp's ridleys have been found al ong the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. and in the GOM. Atlantic juveniles/subadults travel nor thward with vernal warming to feed in the productive, coastal waters of Georgia through New England, returning southward with the onset of winter to escape the cold (Lutcavage and Musick, 1985; Henwood and Ogren, 1987; Ogren, 1989). In the Gulf, juvenile/subadult ridleys occupy shallow, coastal regions. Ogren (1989) suggested that in the northern Gulf they move offshore to deeper, warmer water during winter. Studies suggest that subadult Kemp's ridleys stay in shallow, warm, nearshore waters in the northern GOM until cooling waters force them offs hore or south along the Florida coast (Renaud, 1995). Little is known of the movements of the pos t-hatching, planktonic stage within the Gulf. Studies have shown the post-hatchling pelagic stag e varies from one to four or more years, and the benthic immature stage lasts 7-9 years (Schmid and Witzell, 1997). The Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG) (1998) estimates age at maturity to range from 7 to 15 years.

Stomach contents of Kemp’s ridleys along the lowe r Texas coast consisted of a predominance of nearshore crabs and mollusks, as well as fish, shri mp, and other foods considered to be shrimp fishery discards (Shaver, 1991). Pelagic stage, neonatal Kemp's ridleys presumably feed on the available sargassum and associated infauna or other epipelagic species found in the GOM.

Population Dynamics Kemp’s ridleys have a very restricted distribution relative to other sea turtle species. Data suggest that adult Kemp's ridley turtles are restricted somewhat to the GOM in shallow nearshore waters. Benthic immature turtles with a 20- to 60-cm (8 - to 24-in) straight-line carapace length are found in nearshore coastal waters including estuaries of the GOM and the Atlantic, although adult-sized
individuals sometimes are found on the Eastern Seab oard of the U.S. The post-pelagic stages are commonly found dwelling over crab-rich sandy or muddy bottoms. Juveniles frequent bays, coastal lagoons, and river mouths.

Of the seven extant species of sea turtles in the world, the Kemp's ridley has declined to the lowest population level. Most of the populati on of adult females nest on the Rancho Nuevo beaches (Pritchard, 1969). When nesting aggregati ons at Rancho Nuevo were discovered in 1947,19 adult female populations were estimated to be in excess of 40,000 individuals (Hildebrand, 1963). By the early 1970’s, the world population estimate of mature female Kemp's ridleys had been reduced to 2,500-5,000 individuals. The population declined further through the mid-1980’s. Recent observations of increased nesting suggest that the decline in the ridley population has stopped and the population is now increasing. N esting at Tamaulipas and Veracruz increased from a low of 702 nests in 1985 to 1,930 nests in 1995and to 6,277 nests in 2000. The population model used by the TEWG (1998) projected that Ke mp's ridleys could reach the Recovery Plan’s intermediate recovery goal of 10,000 nesters by 2020 if the assumptions of age to sexual maturity and age-specific survivorship rates used in their model are correct.

Status and Distribution The largest contributor to the decline of the ridley in the past was commercial and local exploitation, especially poaching of nests at the Rancho Nuevo site, as well as the GOM trawl fisheries. The advent of the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) regulations for trawlers and protections for the nesting beaches have allowed th e species to begin to rebound. Many threats to the future of the species remain, including inte ractions with fishery gear, marine pollution, foraging habitat destruction, illega l poaching of nests, and the poten tial threats to nesting beaches from such sources as global climate change, development, and tourism pressures.

Routine Impacts on Sea Turtles Several routine impacts are considered in the EIS including contaminants, noise, vessel collisions, explosive platform removals and marine debris. All of these are offshore impacts and, with the exception of marine debris, are not expected to affect nesting sea turtles.

Marine Debris A wide variety of trash and debris is commonly observed in the Gulf. Marine trash and debris comes from a variety of land-based and ocean sources (Cottingham, 1988). Some material is accidentally lost during drilling a nd production operations. From Ma rch 1, 1994, to February 28, 1995, 40,580 debris items were collected in a 16-mi transect made along the Padre Island National Seashore (Miller et al., 1995). The offshore oil and gas industry was shown to contribute 13 percent of the trash and debris found in the tr ansect. Turtles may become entangled in drifting debris and ingest fragments of synthetic ma terials (Carr, 1987; USDOC, 1988; Heneman and the Center for Environmental Education, 1988). Enta nglement usually involves fishing line or netting (Balazs, 1985). Once entangled, turtles may drow n, incur impairment to forage or avoid predators, sustain wounds and infections from the abrasive or cutting action of attached debris, or
exhibit altered behavior that threaten their survival (Laist, 1997). Sea turtles may become entangled onshore when nesting, or prevented fro m nesting due to marine debris on the nesting beach. Hatchlings can also become entangled on the beach or blocked from passage to the ocean by debris. Both entanglement and ingestion have caused the death or serious injury of individual sea turtles (Balazs, 1985). Balazs (1985) compiled do zens of records of sea turtle entanglement, ingestion, and impaction of the alimentary canal by ingested plastics, although tar was the most common item ingested. The marked tendency of leathe rbacks to ingest plastic has been attributed to misidentification of the translucent films as je llyfish. Lutz (1990) concluded that turtles will actively seek out and consume plastic sheeting. Inge sted debris may block the digestive tract or remain in the stomach for extended periods, thereby lessening the feeding drive, causing ulcerations and injury to the stomach lining, or perhaps even providing a source of toxic chemicals (Laist, 1997). Weakened animals are then more susceptible to predators and disease; they are also less fit to migrat e, breed, or nest successfully.

The initial life history of sea turtles involves the hatching of eggs, evacuation of nests, and commencement of an open ocean voyage. Some hatc hlings spend their “lost years” in sargassum rafts; ocean currents concentrate or trap floatin g debris in sargassum (Carr, 1987). Witherington (1994) studied post-hatchling logge rheads in drift lines 8-35 nmi east of Cape Canaveral and Sebastian Inlet, Florida. Out of 103 turtles capture d, 17 percent of the animals contained plastic or other synthetic fibers in their stomachs or m ouths. The GOM had the second highest number of turtle strandings affected by debris (35.9% ) (Witzell and Teas, 1994). Although the Kemp’s20 ridley is the second most commonly stranded turtle , they are apparently less susceptible to the adverse impacts of debris than the other tu rtle species for some unknown reason (Witzell and Teas, 1994). The MMS prohibits the disposal of eq uipment, containers, and other materials into offshore waters by lessees (30 CFR 250.40). In addition, MARPOL, Annex V, Public Law 100- 220 (101 Statute 1458) prohibits the disposal of any plastics at sea or in coastal waters.

Proposed Action Analysis/Conclusion Sea turtles, both adults and hatchlings, can become entangled in or ingest debris produced by exploration and production activities resulting from a proposed action. The probability of plastic ingestion/entanglement is unknown.

The MMS prohibits the disposal of equipment, containers, and other materials into offshore waters by lessees (30 CFR 250.40). Additionally, MARPOL Annex V. Public Law 100-220 (101 Statute 1458) prohibits the disposal of any plasti cs at sea or in coastal waters. MMS recognized that the intentional jettison of trash and debr is had been greatly reduced and addressed the
unintentional and accidental loss of personal and industry-related items with the Marine Trash
and Debris Awareness and Elimination Notice to Lessees. This NTL, first issued in 2003, requires the posting of awareness placards on structures and vessels, and requires offshore employees to complete annual training on ma rine debris awareness and proper handling procedures. The current version of th is NTL is included in the Appendix.

Greatly improved handling of waste and trash by industry, along with the annual awareness training required by the marine debris mitigati ons, is decreasing the plastics in the ocean and reducing the devastating effects on sea turtles. The routine activities of a proposed action are unlikely to have significant adverse effects on th e size and recovery of any sea turtle species or population in the Gulf of Mexico.

Accidental Impacts on Sea Turtles

This section discusses the impacts of accidental ev ents associated with a proposed action in the
WPA or CPA on sea turtles.

Blowouts Improperly balanced well pressures that result in sudden, uncontrolled releases of fluids from a
wellhead or wellbore are called blowouts. Blowout s can occur during any phase of development: exploratory drilling, development drilling, productio n, completion, or workover operations. In the event of a blowout, the eruption of gases and flui ds may generate significant pressure waves and noise that may harass, injure, or kill sea turtles, depending on their proximity to the accident.

Oil Spills In recent years, increased regulation and decreased tolerance of potentially harmful experimentation with endangered species has lim ited the available data on adverse impacts from events such as oil spills. Much of the best available science about the physiological response of sea turtles (and marine mammals) to oil exposur e comes from studies and observations done in the 1990’s and earlier. Also, decreasing oil spill o ccurrence due to increased safety and security requirements for petroleum transport limits the number of field observations of the effects of spilled oil on sea turtles and other marine fauna.

The following key points concerning oil toxicity and impacts on sea turtles are made by Sheginaka (2003):

• Although surprisingly robust when faced with physical damage (shark attacks, boat strikes), sea turtles are highly sens itive to chemical insults such as oil. • Areas of oil and gas exploration, transportation, and processing often overlap with important sea turtle habitats.21 • Sea turtles are vulnerable to the effects of oil at all life stages—eggs, post-hatchlings, juveniles, and adults in nearshore waters. • Several aspects of sea turtle biology and behavior place them at particular risk, including a lack of avoidance behavior, indiscriminate feeding in convergence zones, and large predive inhalations.
• Oil effects on turtles include increased egg mortality and developmental defects; direct mortality due to oiling in hatc hlings, juveniles, and adults; and negative impacts to the skin, blood, digestive and immune systems, and salt glands.

When an oil spill occurs, the sev erity of effects and the extent of damage to sea turtles are affected by geographic location; hydrocarbon type, dosage, and weathering; impact area; oceanographic and meteorological conditions; season; and life history stages of animals exposed to the hydrocarbons (NRC, 2003). All sea turtle species and life stages are vulnerable to the harmful effects of oil through direct contact or by fouling of their habitats and prey. Van Vleet and Pauly (1987) suggested that discharges of crude oil from tankers were having a significant effect on sea turtles in the Eastern GOM. Expe riments on the physiologic and clinicopathologic effects of hydrocarbons have shown that major body systems of sea turtles are adversely affected by short exposure to weathered oil. Sea turtles accidentally exposed to oil or tarballs may suffer inflammatory dermatitis, ventilatory disturbance, salt gland dysfunction or failure, red blood cell disturbances, immune responses, and digestive diso rders or blockages (Vargo et al., 1986; Lutzand Lutcavage, 1989; Lutcavage et al., 1995). Although disturbances may be temporary, longterm effects remain unknown, and chronically ingested oil may accumulate in organs. Direct contact with oil may harm devel oping turtle embryos. Exposure to hydrocarbons may be fatal, particularly to juvenile and hatchling sea turtles.

Oil can adhere to the body surface of marine turtl es. Oil has been observed to cling to the nares, eyes, and upper esophagus (Overton et al., 1983; Van Vleet and Pauly, 1987; Gramentz, 1988; Lutcavage et al., 1995). Witham (1983) found tar seal ed the mouth and nostrils of small turtles. Turtles may become entrapped by tar and oil slicks and rendered im mobile (Witham, 1978; Plotkin and Amos, 1988; Gramentz, 1988). Perioc ular tissues and other mucous membranes would presumably be most sensitive to contact with hydrocarbons. Skin damage in turtles is in marked contrast to that observed in dolphins, wher e all structural and biochemical changes in the epidermis were minor and reversible. Changes in the skin are consistent with an acute, primary contact or irritant dermatitis. A break in the skin barrier could act as a portal of entry for pathogenic organisms, leading to infection, ne oplastic conditions, and de bilitation (Vargo et al., 1986).

Turtles surfacing in an oil spill will inhale oil vapors. Any interference with operation of the lungs would probably reduce a sea turtle’s capacity for sustained activity (aerobic scope) and its dive time, both effects decreasing the turtle’s chance of survival.

Lutcavage et al. (1995) found that operation of the salt gland in sea turtles was disrupted with exposure to hydrocarbons, but the disturbance di d not appear until several days after exposure. The salt glands did recover function when t ested after two weeks of recovery. Prolonged interference with salt gland functioning could have serious consequences since it would interfere with both water balance and ion regulation. Lutcavage et al. (1995) report finding oil in the feces of turtles that swallowed oil in experiments. Van Vleet and Pauly (1987) reported that oil ingested by turtles did not pass rapidly through the digestiv e tract but was retained within the system for a period of several days, thus increasing the like lihood that toxic components of oil could be assimilated by other internal orga ns and tissues of the turtle.

Significant changes in blood chemistry following contact with hydrocarbons have been reported (Lutcavage et al., 1995). Hematocrit and hemoglobin concentration decreased slightly during contact; these parameters are critical components of the blood’s oxygen transport system. The22 most striking hematologic finding was an eleva tion of white blood cell count, which may indicate a “stress” reaction related to oil exposure and/or toxicity.

Eggs, hatchlings, and small juveniles are part icularly vulnerable if contacted (Fritts and McGehee, 1982; Lutz and Lutcavage, 1989). Female sea turtles crawling through tar to lay eggs can transfer the tar to the nest; this was not ed on St. Vincent NWR in 1994 (USDOI, FWS, 1997). Potential toxic impacts to embryos will depend on th e type of oil and degree of weathering, type of beach substrate, and especially upon the developmental stage of the embryo. Embryonic development in an egg may be altered or arrested by contact with oil (Fritts and McGehee, 1982). Fresh oil was found to be highly toxic, especially during the last quarter of the incubation period, whereas aged oil produced no det ectable effects. Fritts and McGehee (1982) concluded that oil contamination of nesting beaches would have its greatest impact on nests that were already constructed; nests made on fouled beaches are less likely to be affected, if at all. However, residual oil and tarballs may be integrated into nests by nesting females. Residues may agglutinate sand grains where eggs are deposited, later impeding hatchlin gs from successfully evacuating nests and ultimately leading to their d eath. Hatchling and small juvenile turtles are particularly vulnerable to contacting or ing esting hydrocarbons because the currents that concentrate oil spills also form the debris mats in which young turtles are sometimes found (Carr, 1980; Collard and Ogren, 1990; Witherington, 1994). This would also be true for juvenile sea turtles that are sometimes found in floating mats of sargassum. Oil slicks, slicketts, or tarballs moving through offshore waters may foul sargassum mats that hatchling and juvenile sea turtles inhabit, which would conceivably result in the loss of sea turtle habitat or the “take” of sea turtles. The result of adult sea turtles feeding selectivel y in surface convergence lines could be prolonged contact with viscous weathered oil (Witham, 1978; Hall et al., 1983). High rates of oil contact in very young turtles suggest that bioaccumulation may occur over their pot entially long lifespan. Exposure to hydrocarbons may begin as early as eggs are deposited in contaminated beach sand. A female coming ashore to nest might be fouled with oil or transport existing residues at the driftline to the nest. During nesting, she might push oil mixed with sand into the nest and contaminate the eggs (Chan and Liew, 1988). Assu ming olfaction is critical to the process, oil fouling of a nesting area might disturb imprinting of hatchling turtles or confuse the turtles on their return migration after a 6- to 8-year abse nce (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1985; Chan and Liew, 1988).

Some captive turtles exposed to oil either re duced the amount of time spent at the surface, possibly avoiding the oil, or became agitated and had short submergence leve ls (Lutcavage et al., 1995). Sea turtles pursue and swallow tarballs, a nd there is no firm evidence that free-ranging turtles can detect and avoid oil (Odell and MacM urray, 1986). A loggerhead turtle sighted during an aerial survey in the GOM surfaced repeated ly within a surface oil slick for over an hour (Lohoefener et al., 1989). Oil might have a more indir ect effect on the behavior of marine turtles. The effect on reproductive success could therefore be significant.

Contact with hydrocarbons may not cause direct or immediate death but cumulative sublethal effects, such as salt gland disruption or liver impa irment, could impair the marine turtle’s ability to function effectively in the marine environment (Vargo et al., 1986; Lutz and Lutcavage, 1989). Although many observed physiological insults are resolved in a 21-day recovery period, the impact of tissue oil intake on the long-term he alth and survival of sea turtles remains unknown (Lutcavage et al., 1995). There is evidence of bi oaccumulation in sea turtl es exposed for longer periods of time. After the Gulf of Iraq war, a stranded green turtle did not appear to have contacted hydrocarbons, but upon necropsy, was found to have large amounts of oil in its liver and stomach tissues (Greenpeace, 1992).

A study of turtles collected during the Ixtoc spill determined that the three animals found dead had oil hydrocarbons in all tissues examined and th at there was selective elimination of portions of this oil, indicating that exposure to the oil w as chronic. The turtles evidently did not encounter the oil shortly before death but had been exposed to it for some time (Hall et al., 1983). The low23 metabolic rate of turtles may cause a limite d capacity to metabolize hydrocarbons. Prolonged exposure to oil may have caused the poor body condition observed in the turtles, perhaps disrupting feeding activity. In such weakened c ondition, the turtles may have succumbed to some toxic component in the oil or some undiscovered agent.

The primary feeding grounds for adult Kemp’s ri dley turtles in the northern and southern GOM are near major areas of coastal and offshore oil exploration and production (USDOC, NMFS, 1992). The nesting beach at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, is also vulnerable and was indeed affected by the Ixtoc spill. The spill reached the nesting beach after the nesting season when adults had returned or were returning to their feeding gr ounds. It is unknown how adult turtles using the Bay of Campeche fared. It is possible that high hatc hling mortality occurred th at year in the oceanic waters of the Gulf as a result of the floating oil.

Spill-Response Activities In addition to the impacts from contact with hydrocarbons, spill-response activities could adversely affect sea turtle habitat and cause di splacement from suitable habitat to inadequate areas. Impacting factors might include artificial lighting from night operations, booms, machine and human activity, equipment on beaches and in in tertidal areas, sand removal and cleaning, and changed beach landscape and composition. Some of the resulting impacts from cleanup could include interrupted or deterred nesting behavi or, crushed nests, entanglement in booms, and increased mortality of hatchlings because of pred ation during the increased time required to reach the water (Newell, 1995; Lutcavage et al., 1997). The damage assessment and restoration plan/environmental assessment for the August 1993 Tampa Bay oil spill also noted that hatchlings that were restrained during the spill response were released on b eaches other than their natal beaches, thus potentially losing them fro m the local nesting population (FDEP et al., 1997). Additionally, turtle hatchlings and adults may become disoriente d and normal behavior disrupted by human presence as well as industrial activity. Indi vidual turtles covered with oil have been cleaned, rehabilitated, and released (e.g., FDEP et al., 1997). The strategy for cleanup operations should vary, depending on the season, recognizing that disturbance to the nest may be more detrimental than the oil (Fritts and McGehee, 1982). As mandated by OPA 90, seagrass beds and live-bottom communities are expected to receive individual consideration during spill cleanup. Required spill contingency plans include special notices to minimize adverse effects from vehicular traffic during cleanup activities and to ma ximize protection efforts to prevent contact of these areas with spilled oil. Loggerhead turtle ne sting areas in the Chandeleur Islands, Cape Breton National Seashore, and central Gulf States would also be expected to receive special cleanup considerations under these regulations. Little is known about the effects of dispersants on sea turtles and, in the absence of direct testi ng, impacts are difficult to predict. Dispersant components absorbed through the lungs or gut ma y affect multiple organ systems and interfere with digestion, excretion, respiration, and/or salt-gland function. Inhalation of dispersant can interfere with function through the surfactant (det ergent) effect. These impacts are similar to the empirically demonstrated effects of oil alone (Hoff and Shigenaka, 2003).

Proposed Action Analysis
Since sea turtle habitat in the Gulf includes in shore, coastal, and oceanic waters, as well as numerous beaches in the region, sea turtles could be impacted by accidental spills resulting from operations associated with the proposed actions in the WPA and CPA. Table 4-38 lists the estimates for spill magnitude and abundance for Gulf coastal waters as a result of a proposed action, and Table 4-35 gives similar data for Federal OCS waters. However, estimates of where these accidents occur relative to water depth are not presented. Qualitative inspection of spill data indicates that the following will likely be in each planning area: many, frequent, small spills; few, infrequent, moderate-sized spills; and a single, unlikel y, large spill. Such spills are attributed to a proposed action. The assessment of spill frequency (i.e., frequent, infrequent , unlikely) is based relative to the 40-year life span of a proposed action.24 Oil spills introduced specifically into coastal wate rs (as opposed to spills immigrating to coastal waters from offshore) as a result of a proposed action are assumed to encroach upon adjacent
coastal lands. Table 4-38 shows the estimated oil that would be introduced into coastal waters as a result of a proposed action.

The OSRA modeling results indicate that a larg e spill (>1,000 bbl) occurring in Federal offshore waters stands a 10-16 percent probability of impa cting Texas State waters, based on a proposed action for the WPA ( Figure 4-13 ). Should a large oil spill occur as a result of a proposed action in the CPA, Texas State offshore waters run a 2-3 percent risk of impact ( Figure 4-13 ). State offshore waters of western Louisiana stand a 23-35 percent and 1-2 percent risk of impact from an OCS spill occurrence resulti ng from a CPA proposed action and a WPA proposed action, respectively. There is a 6-9 percent spill risk to L ouisiana coastal waters east of the mouth of the Mississippi River from a CPA proposed action and <0.5 percent spill risk from a WPA proposed action. The OSRA model projected a spill risk of <0.5-1 percent for coastal and offshore waters eastward of Louisiana as a result of any of proposed actions ( Figure 4-13 ).

In general terms, coastal waters of the planning areas are expected to be impacted by many, frequent, small spills (<1 bbl); few, infrequent, mode rately-sized spills (>1 and <1,000 bbl); and a single, large (>1,000 bbl) spill. Pipelines pose the gr eatest risk of a large spill occurring in coastal waters. Matagorda County, Texas, and Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, are the most likely landfall locations in the WPA and the CPA, respectiv ely, where such a large spill might occur.

Because oil spills introduced speci fically in coastal waters of Texas and Louisiana are assumed to impact adjacent lands, there is likelihood that sp illed oil will impact sea turtle nesting beaches in these states. Nesting beaches along south Texas, su ch as the Padre Island National Seashore, are susceptible to such spills, thereby potentially impacting the recovery of Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, green, and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the Western Gulf. In Louisiana, loggerhead nesting beaches on the Chandeleur Islands are vulne rable to an oil spill originating in adjacent waters; however, the hurricane damage suffered by these islands in the last few years has likely rendered them unsuitable for nesting beaches.

Depending on the timing of the spill’s occurrence in coastal waters, its impact and resulting cleanup may interrupt sea turtle migration, feeding, mating, and/ or nesting activity for extended periods (days, weeks, months). Spills originating in or migrating through coastal waters of Texas or Louisiana may impact any of the five sea tur tle species inhabiting the Gulf. Kemp’s ridley is the most endangered sea turtle species and is strongl y associated with coastal waters of Texas and Louisiana. Also, green, hawksbill, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles use coastal waters of
the Western Gulf. Aside from the acute effects not ed if sea turtles encounter an oil slick, the displacement of sea turtles to less suitable habita ts from habitual feeding areas impacted by oil spills may increase vulnerability to predators, disease, or anthropogenic mortality. A high incidence of juvenile sea turtle foraging occurs along certain coastal regions of the Gulf Coast. Prime examples of known foraging areas for juvenile sea turtles in the Gulf are the Texas Laguna Madre, extending from the Texas-Me xico border to Mansfield Pass, Texas, for green turtles; and Sea Rim State Park, Texas, to Mermentau Pass, Louisiana, for Kemp’s ridleys (Renaud, 2001). The interruption of mating and nesting activities fo r extended periods may influence the recovery of sea turtle populations. For example, a large oil spill could inhibit the mating or nesting activity of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle at Texas beaches by limiting the number of eggs being fertilized or the number of nests being constructed for one or more years.

Estimates from spill data show that Federal offshor e waters will be subjected to many frequent small spills (<1 bbl); few, infreque nt, moderately-sized spills (>1 and <1,000 bbl); and/or rare large spills ( Table 4-35 ) as a result of the proposed actions. Spill estimates for the WPA indicate
57-99 bbl of oil will be introduced in offshore wa ters from small spills (< 1 bbl). An additional 371-1,245 bbl of oil will be spilled in quantities of a >1 to <1,000 bbl spill event. A single, large spill (>1,000 bbl) is estimated to introduce approximate ly 4,600 bbl of oil. A single, but unlikely,25 spill may occur that introduces as much as 15,000 bbl of oil. The total volume of oil spilled in Federal offshore waters as a result of the proposed actions in the WPA is estimated at 371-20,845 bbl of oil spread over the 40-year life span of the proposed actions.

Oil-spill data derived from historical trends estim ate that a total volume of 5,666-26,575 bbl of oil
will be introduced into Federal offshore waters over 40 years as a result of the proposed lease sales in the CPA. Small spills (<1 bbl) are proj ected to introduce 182-304 bbl of oil. Moderatesized spills (>1 and <1,000 bbl), though occurri ng less frequently than smaller spills, will introduce an estimated 884-2,071 bbl of oil. One or two large spills (>1,000 bbl) are assumed to introduce approximately 4,600-9,200 bbl of oil as a result of proposed actions in the CPA. In the rare event that a spill exceeding 10,000 bbl shoul d occur, it is estimated that approximately 15,000 bbl of oil will be spille d. All neonate sea turtles undertake a passive voyage via oceanic waters following nest evacuation. Depending on the species and population, their voyage in oceanic waters may last 10 or more years. Beaches of the Caribbean Sea and GOM are used as nesting habitat, and hatchlings evacuating these nesting beaches emigrate to oceanic waters seaward of their nesting sites. Surface drifter car d data (Lugo-Fernandez et al., 2001) indicate that circulation patterns in the Caribbean Sea and southern GOM may transport neonate and young juvenile sea turtles from these areas to oceanic waters off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Moreover, these journeys begin as pulsed events, with many hatchlings emerging and emigrating offshore at the same times. Oceanic OCS waters of the GOM are also inhabited by subadult and adult leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles; howev er, adults of any endemic sea turtle species may be found offshore. Consequently, intermedia te to large spills occu rring in these waters may impact multiple turtles, particularly neonate or young juvenile sea turtles associating with oceanic fronts or refuging in sargassum mats where oil slicks, decomposing residues, and tarballs are likely to accumulate. Large spills, particularly those flowing fresh hydrocarbons into oceanic and/or outer shelf waters for extended periods (d ays, weeks, months), pose an increased risk of impacting sea turtles inhabiting these waters. It is noteworthy that such an event may impact entire cohorts originating from nesting beaches in the Caribbean or southern Gulf, as well as those originating from Texas and Louisiana n esting beaches. There is an extremely small probability that a single sea turtle will encounter an oil slick resulting from a single, small spill. Increasing the size of a slick or factoring in the number of estimated spills over 40 years increases
the likelihood that an animal w ill encounter a single slick during the lifetime of an animal; many sea turtle species are long-lived and may traver se throughout waters of the northern Gulf. The web of reasoning is incomplete without consider ing the abundance (stock or population) of each species inhabiting the Gulf. The likelihood that me mbers of a sea turtle population (e.g., Kemp’s ridley) may encounter an oil slick resulting from a single spill during a 40-year period is greater than that of a single individual encountering a slic k during its lifetime. It is impossible to estimate precisely what sea turtle species, populations, or individuals will be impacted, to what magnitude, or in what numbers, since each species has unique distribution patterns in the Gulf and because of difficulties attributed to estimating when and wh ere oil spills will occur over a 40-year period.

Given the distribution of available leases and pi pelines associated with the proposed actions and the distribution of sea turtles in the northern GOM, the fate of an oil spill must be considered relative to the region and period of exposure. Spill estimates derived from data documenting historical trends of oil spills in coastal a nd offshore waters indicate that the WPA and CPA proposed actions may introduce 11,167-31,777 bbl of oil into Gulf offshore and coastal environments over 40 years. Spills of any size degrade water quality, and residuals become
available for bioaccumulation within the food chain. Slicks may spread at the sea surface or may migrate underwater from the seafloor through the water column and never broach the sea surface. Regardless, a slick is an expanding, but aggregated mass of oil that, with time, will disperse into smaller units as it evaporates (if at the sea surface) and weathers. As the slick breaks up into smaller units (e.g., slickets) and soluble compone nts dissolve into the sea water, tarballs may remain within the water column. Tarballs may su bsequently settle to the seafloor or attach to other particles or bodies in the sea. As residues of an oil spill disperse and commit to the physical environment (water, sediments, and particulates), sea turtles of any life history stage may be26 exposed via the waters that they drink and swim , as well as via the prey they consume. For example, tarballs may be consumed by sea turtl es and by other marine organisms, and eventually bioaccumulate within sea turtles. Although sea tur tles may (or may not) avoid oil spills or slicks, it is highly unlikely that they are capable of avoiding spill residuals in their environment. Consequently, the probability that a sea turtle is exposed to oil resulting from a spill extends well after the oil spill has dispersed from its initial aggr egated mass. Populations of sea turtles in the northern Gulf will be exposed to residuals of oils spilled as a result of the proposed actions during
their lifetimes.

In general, on a yearly basis, about 1 percent of strandings identified by the U.S. Sea Turtle Stranding Network are associated with oil (e.g., Teas and Martinez, 1992). Turtles do not always avoid contact with oil (e.g., Lohoefener et al., 1989). Contact with petroleum and consumption of oil and oil-contaminated prey may seriously impact turtles; there is direct evidence that turtles have been seriously harmed by petroleum spills. Oil spills and residues have the potential to cause chronic (longer-term lethal or sublethal oil-re lated injuries) and acute (spill-related deaths occurring during a spill) effects on turtles.

Due to spill response and cleanup efforts, much of an oil spill may be recovered before it reaches the coast. However, cleanup efforts in offshore wate rs may result in additional harm or mortality of sea turtles, particularly to neonates and j uveniles. Oil spills and spill-response activities at nesting beaches, such as beach sand removal and compaction, can negatively affect sea turtles. Although spill-response activities such as vehicu lar and vessel traffic during nesting season are assumed to affect sea turtle habitats, further ha rm may be limited because of efforts designed to prevent spilled oil from contacting these areas. In creased human presence could influence turtle behavior and/or distribution, thereby stressing animals and making them more vulnerable to predators, the toxicological effects of oil, or other anthropogenic sources of mortality.

In the event of a blowout, the eruption of g ases and fluids may generate significant pressure waves and noise that may harass, injure, or kill sea turtles, depending on their proximity to the accident. Fortunately, improvements in technolog y and equipment have greatly decreased the
occurrence of blowouts.

Summary and Conclusion Accidental blowouts, oil spills, and spill-res ponse activities resulting from a proposed action in the WPA or CPA have the potential to impact smal l to large numbers of sea turtles in the GOM, depending on the magnitude and frequency of accide nts, the ability to respond to accidents, the location and date of accidents, and various meteorological and hydrological factors. Populations of sea turtles in the northern Gulf will be expo sed to residuals of oils spilled as a result of a proposed action during their lifetimes. Chronic or acute exposure may result in the harassment, harm, or mortality to sea turtles occurring in the northern Gulf. In mo st foreseeable cases, exposure to hydrocarbons persisting in the sea followi ng the dispersal of an oil slick will result in sublethal impacts (e.g., decreased health, repr oductive fitness, and longevity; and increased vulnerability to disease) to sea turtles. Sea tu rtle hatchling exposure to, fouling by, or consumption of tarballs persisting in the sea followi ng the dispersal of an oil slick by would likely
be fatal.

Analysis of Spill Risk to Sea Turtles

Risk from Offshore Spills >1,000 bbl Spills occurring as a result of a proposed action an d oil slicks migrating through coastal waters
could reach coastal sea turtle habitats. Figure 4-20 maps the locations analyzed by the OSRA model in calculating the risk of an oil slick cont acting the general, mating, and nesting habitats of sea turtles. Working with FWS, MMS determined the months when sea tur tles used the identified coastal habitats. The model results present th e likelihood of slicks reaching the identified locations only during these months.27 Figure 4-20 provides the likelihood of an offshore spill ∃ 1,000 bbl occurring from a proposed action and reaching the identified coastal sea turtle habitats within 10 days during the identified months of use. The OSRA modeling results indicate that there is a 10-16 percent probability that a spill >1,000 bbl occurring as a result of a WPA proposed action and the slick reaching Texas waters used by sea turtles as general coastal habita t within 10 days after a spill event. There is a 6-10 percent chance that one or more spills w ould occur and the slick reaching Texas waters within 10 days after the spill occurrence during mating season. There is a <0.5-4 percent chance that a spill >1,000 bbl would occur from a WP A proposed action and the slick reaching shore within 10 days during Texas’s sea turtle nesting season.

The probability of an offshore oil spill >1,000 bbl occurring as a result of a proposed action in the CPA and the slick reaching Louisiana coastal wate rs used by turtles as general coastal habitat within 10 days ranges from 6 to 35 percent. The Chandeleur Islands is the only area in Louisiana considered sea turtle habitat for mating and nesti ng; there is up to a 4 percent chance that this habitat would be contacted by slick from an o ffshore spill >1,000 bbl occurring as a result of a proposed action.

The OSRA model results show that there is a <0 .5 percent chance that coastal areas in Mexico and Florida, when serving as sea turtle habitat, w ould be contacted by an oil slick resulting from an offshore spill >1,000 related to a proposed action. There is a <0.5 per cent chance that coastal areas in Mississippi and Alabama, when serving as sea turtle habitat, would be contacted by an oil slick resulting from an offshore spill >1,000 related to a proposed action in the WPA. There is a 1 percent chance that coastal areas in Mississippi and a <0.5-1 percent chance that coastal areas in Alabama, when serving as sea turtle habitat, woul d be contacted by an oil slick resulting from an offshore spill >1,000 bbl occurring as a result of a CPA proposed action.

Tables 4-36 and 4-37 provide MMS estimates of the likely size and remaining volumes of oil slicks of a “typical” CPA oil and a “typical” WPA o il for several time increments after spills of assumed size 4,600 bbl occur. In the CPA, it is estim ated that 50 bbl would remain in the slick 10 days after the spill; about 1 km (0.6 mi) of shore line would be contacted if the 10-day-old, 50-bbl slick reached shore. In the WPA, it is estimated th at the slick would dissipate within 4 days. It is estimated that 10-50 km (6-31 mi) of land would be contacted if a slick from a WPA proposed action reached shore within 24 hours after the spill incident.

Risk from All Offshore Spills
The MMS estimates that about 400- 21,000 bbl of oil would be spille d in offshore waters from an estimated 800-1,500 spills over the 40-year life of a proposed action in the WPA and about 5,500- 26,500 bbl of oil would be spilled in offshore waters from an estimated 2,700-4,500 spills over the 40-year life of a proposed action in the CPA; most (about 97%) of these spills would be <1 bbl. These volumes include volumes from 1-2 spill in cidents in the size class of >1,000 bbl and one in the size class of >10,000 bbl. This volume assumes one spill incident in the size group >1,000 bbl and one spill incident in the size group ∃ 10,000 bbl. While <1 spill is estimated for some sizes of spills ( Table 4-35 ), there is always a finite ch ance of any size spill occurring. Therefore, the possibility of at least one spill of each size is included in the upper spill volume
estimates.

For spills <1,000 bbl, only those >50 bbl would be expected to have a chance of persisting as a cohesive slick long enough for the slick to r each land. Few offshore spills 50-1,000 bbl are estimated to occur as a result of a proposed action, and few of these slicks are expected to occur proximate to State waters and to reach shore. Should a slick from such a spill make landfall, the volume of oil remaining in the slick is expected to be small.

Risk from Coastal Spills Approximately 61-136 spills are estimated to o ccur within Gulf coastal waters from activities supporting CPA and WPA proposed actions combined ; most (about 90%) of these spills would be28 <1 bbl. The most likely locations of the estimated 6-15 coastal spills >1 bbl would be proximate to the major oil pipeline shore facilities. Except for two 3,000-bbl spills estimated to occur in
Louisiana and Texas coastal waters under the high resource-estimate scenario, MMS estimates that coastal spills >1,000 bbl resulting from a proposed action have a low probably of occurrence.

Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key Beach Mice

Hall (1981) recognizes 16 subspecies of field mouse ( Peromyscus polionotus ), 8 of which are collectively known as beach mice. Of Gulf Coast subspecies, the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key, beach mice occupy rest ricted habitats in the mature coastal dunes of
Florida and Alabama. All four mice are liste d as endangered: the Alabama subspecies in Alabama, and the Perdido Key, St. Andrew, and Choctawhatchee subspecies in Florida (USDOI, FWS, 1987). Populations have fallen to levels a pproaching extinction. For example, in the late 1980’s, estimates of total remaining beach mice were less than 900 for the Alabama beach mouse, about 80 for the Perdido Key beach mouse, and about 500 for the Choctawhatchee beach mouse. The Alabama, Perdido Key, and Choctawhatchee beach mice were listed as endangered in the
1980’s. The St. Andrew beach mouse was not liste d as endangered until 1998; it is the only listed subspecies without designated critical habitat. Continued monitoring of populations of all subspecies along the Gulf Coast between 1985 and the present indicates that approximately 52 km (32.3 mi) of coastal dune habitat are now o ccupied by the four listed subspecies (1/3 of historic range). Beach mice were listed becau se of the loss of coastal habitat from human development. The reduced distribution and numbe rs of beach mice have continued because of multiple habitat threats over their entire range (coastal development and associated human activities, military activities, coastal erosion, and weather). The Federal Register (2006) cites habitat loss as the primary cause for declines in populations of beach mice. Development of beachfront real estate along coastal areas and cat astrophic alteration by hurricanes are the primary
contributors to loss of habitat. Destruction of Gulf Coast sand dune ecosystems for commercial and residential development has destroyed about 60 percent of original beach mouse habitat (Holliman, 1983). Recent studies indicate that this continues to be a problem (Douglass et al., 1999; South Alabama Regional Planning Commission, 2001).

The inland extent of beach mouse habitat may va ry depending on the c onfiguration of the sand dune system and the vegetation present. There are commonly several rows of dunes paralleling the shoreline and within these rows there are ge nerally three types of microhabitat. The first microhabitat is the frontal dunes, which are spar sely vegetated with wi dely scattered coarse grasses including sea oats ( Uniola paniculata ), bunch grass ( Andropogon maritimus ), and beach grass ( Panicum amarum and P. repens ), and with seaside rosemary ( Ceratiola ericoides ), beach morning glory ( Ipomoea stolonifera ), and railroad vine ( I. Pes-caprae ). The second microhabitat is the frontal dune grasses, a lesser component on the higher rear scrub dunes, which support growth of slash pine ( Pinus elliotti ), sand pine ( P. clausa ), and scrubby shrubs and oaks, including yaupon ( Ilex vomitoria ), marsh elder ( Iva sp .), scrub oak ( Quercus myrtifolia ), and sand-live oak ( Q. virginiana var. maritima ). The third microhabitat is the interdunal areas, which contain sedges ( Cyperus sp .), rushes ( Juncus scirpoides ), and salt grass ( Distichlis spicata)

.

Beach mice are restricted to the coastal barri er sand dunes along the Gulf. Optimal overall beach mouse habitat is currently thought to be comp rised of a heterogeneous mix of interconnected habitats including primary dunes, secondary dunes, scrub dunes, and interdunal areas. Beach mice dig burrows mainly in the primary, secondary, and interior scrub dunes where the vegetation provides suitable cover. Most beach mouse surv eys conducted prior to the mid-1990’s were in primary and secondary dunes because the investig ators assumed that these habitats are the preferred habitat of beach mice. A limited numbe r of surveys in scrub dunes and other interior habitat resulted in less knowledge of the distri bution and relative abundance there. In coastal environments, the terms “scrub” and “scrub dune” refer to habitat or vegetation communities adjacent to and landward of primary and secondary dune types where scrub oaks are visually dominant. Interior habitat can include vegetati on types such as grass-like forbs (forbs are the29 herbs other than grasses). There is substantial va riation in scrub oak densit y and cover within and among scrub dunes throughout ranges of beach mice. The variation, an ecological gradient, is represented by scrub oak woodland with a relatively closed canopy at one end of a continuum. At the other extreme of the gradient, scrub dunes ar e relatively open with patchy scrub ridges and intervening swales or interdunal flat s dominated by herbaceous plants.

Beach mice feed nocturnally in the dunes and rema in in burrows during the day. Their diets vary seasonally but consist mainly of seeds, fruits, and insects (Ehrhart, 1978; Moyers, 1996). Changes in the availability of foods result in changes in diets between seasons and account for variability of seasonal diets between years. Autumn diets of beach mice consist primarily of seeds and/or fruits of sea oats, evening primrose ( Oenothera humifusa ), bluestem ( Schizachyrium maritimum ), and dune spurge ( Chamaesyce ammannioides ). Sea oats and beach pea (Galactia sp.) dominate winter diets. Spring diets primarily consist of dune toadflax ( Linaria floridana ), yaupon holly ( Ilex vomitoria) , seashore elder ( Iva imbricata ), and greenbrier ( Smilax sp. ). Summer diets are dominated by evening primrose, insects, dune toadflax, and ground cherry ( Physalis augustifolia ) (Moyers, 1996). Management practices designed to promote recovery of dune habitat, increase food sources, and enhance habitat heterogeneity may aid in recove ry of beach mouse populations.

In wild populations, beach mice have an averag e life span of about nine months. Males and females reach adulthood and are able to reproduce at approximately 35 days of age. Females can nurse one litter while pregnant with another litter. From captive colonies we know that litter size is 1-8 with an average of four. Young are weaned in 2-3 weeks and are generally on their own 1-2
weeks later.

Hurricanes are a natural environmental phenome non affecting the Gulf Coast, and beach mice have evolved and persisted in coast al dune habitats since the Pleist ocene. Hurricanes are part of a repeated cycle of destruction, alteration, and r ecovery of dune habitat. The extensive coastal dune habitat that existed along the Gulf Coast before the fairly recent commercial and residential development allowed beach mice to survive even the most severe hurricane events to repopulate
dune habitat as it recovered. Beach mice are a ffected by the passage of hurricanes along the
northwest Florida and Alabama Gulf Coast. Since records on hurricane intensity began in 1885, a
total of 32 hurricanes have struck northwest Florid a within the historic ranges of the four Gulf Coast beach mouse subspecies (W illiams and Duedall, 1997; Doering et al., 1994; Neumann et al., 1993). In addition, 22 hurricanes have made landfall along the coast of Alabama from 1851 to 2004 (USDOC, NOAA, National Hurricane Center, 2006).

Hurricanes generally produce damaging winds, storm tides and surges, and rain that erode barrier island, peninsular, and mainland beaches and dunes. Following hurricanes, the dune system begins a slow natural repair process that may ta ke 3-20 years, depending on the magnitude of dune loss (Salmon et al., 1982). During this peri od, sea oats and pioneer dune vegetation become established, collecting sand and building dunes. As the dunes grow and become stable, other successional dune vegetation colonizes the area (G ibson and Looney, 1994), and beach mouse
food sources and habitats are reestablished. The ra te of recovery of food supplies for beach mice is variable with some areas adversely affected for an extended period of time by hurricane and post-hurricane conditions.

Tropical storms periodically devastate Gulf Coast sand dune communities, dramatically altering or destroying habitat, and either drowning beach mice or forcing them to concentrate on high scrub dunes where they are exposed to predators. How a hurricane affects beach mice depends primarily on its characteristics (winds, storm surge, rainfall), the time of year (midsummer is the worst), and where the eye crosses land (side of hurricane—clockwise or counterclockwise), population size, and storm impacts to habitat and food sources. The interior dunes and related access corridors may be essential habitats for beach mice following survival of a hurricane. For the three subspecies that have critical habitat areas (Alabama, Perdido Ke y, and Choctawhatchee beach mice), the major constituent elements th at are known to require special management30 considerations or protection are dunes and interdunal areas and associ ated grasses and shrubs that provide food and cover (USDOI, FWS, 1985a and b).

Beach mice have existed in an environment subj ect to recurring hurricanes, but tropical storms and hurricanes are now considered to be a primary factor in the beach mouse’s decline. It is only within the last 20-30 years that the combination of habitat loss due to beachfront development, isolation of remaining beach mouse habitat blocks and populations, and destruction of remaining habitat by hurricanes have increased the threat of extinction of several subspecies of beach mice.

The FWS reported considerable damage to 10 National Wildlife Refuges in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and the Panhandle of Flor ida caused by Hurricane Iv an in 2004 (USDOI, FWS, 2004). Perdido Key, Florida, was hit hard by Hurricane Ivan, and beach mouse dune habitat and populations were greatly re duced. Dune habitat is recoveri ng and tracking data have shown that the mice are slowly expanding back into th eir previous range (Haddad, 2005). Hurricane Ivan adversely impacted an estimated 90-95 percent of primary and secondary dune habitat throughout the range of the Alabama beach mouse (USDOI, FWS, 2004a). Trapping data indicate that mice may have been extirpated from these low-ly ing areas (USDOI, FWS, 2004a). The mice take refuge on higher ground during severe storms. Ap proximately 3,460 ha (1,400 ac) of higher elevation scrub habitat did not appear to be i nundated by storm surge from either Hurricanes Ivan or Katrina (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001; USFWS, 2004a and b, 2005; ENSR Corporation, 2004) but received moderate damage from salt spray and wind (Boyd et al. 2003; USDOI, FWS, 2004a). The worst damage from Hu rricane Ivan occurred in Alabama to Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge located west of Gulf Shores, Alabama along the Fort Morgan Peninsula. Major primary dunes at Bon Secour we re almost completely destroyed and tons of debris washed up on the refuge.

Following Hurricane Opal in 1995, Swilling et al . (1998) reported higher Alabama beach mouse densities in the scrub than the foredunes nearly 1 year after the storm. As vegetation began to recover, however, the primary and secondary d unes were reoccupied by Alabama beach mice, and population densities surpassed those in the scr ub in the fall and winter following the storm.
Similar movement and habitat o ccupation patterns were observed following Hurricane Georges in 1998. Therefore, while Alabama beach mouse numbers and habitat quality in the frontal dunes ebb and flow in response to tropical storms, the higher elevation scrub habitat is important to mouse conservation as a more stable environment during and after storm events.

Reasons for Current Status Beachfront development continues to be the great est threat to beach mouse survival (Holler, 1991; Humphrey, 1992). Habitat reduction and fragm entation have affected the ability of beach mice to quickly recover following tropical storms. The combinations of habitat loss to beachfront development, isolation of remaining habitat bl ocks and beach mouse populations, and destruction of remaining habitat by hurricanes has increased the threat of extinction for the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice within the last 20-30 years (USFWS, 2006a).

Routine Impacts on Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key
Beach Mice

This section discusses the possible effects of r outine activities associated with a proposed action in the CPA on the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice, which are designated as protected species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( Chapter 1.3

, Regulatory Framework). The mice occupy restricted habitat behind coastal foredunes of Florida and Alabama (Ehrhart, 1978; USDOI, FWS, 1987). Portions of the beach mouse habitat have been designated as critical.

Proposed Action Analysis31 The major impact-producing factors associated w ith a proposed action that may affect beach mice include beach trash and debris, efforts undertaken for the removal of marine debris or for beach restoration, offshore and coastal oil spills, a nd spill-response activities. The potential impacts from spills and spill-response on beach mice activities are discussed in Chapter 4.3.5

.

Beach mice may mistakenly consume trash and debr is. Mice may become entangled in the debris. A proposed action is expected to contribute negligib le marine debris or disruption to beach mice
areas. Efforts undertaken for the removal of ma rine debris, may temporarily scare away beach mice, destroy their food resources such as sea oats, or collapse the tops of their burrows.

Summary and Conclusion An impact from a proposed action in the CPA on the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew and Perdido Key beach mice is possible but unlikely. Impact may result from consumption of beach trash and debris. A proposed action would deposit only a small portion of the total debris that
would reach the habitat. Efforts undertaken for the removal of marine debris, may temporarily scare away beach mice, destroy their food resour ces, or collapse the tops of their burrows.

Accidental Impacts on the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key Beach Mice

Direct contact with spilled oil can cause skin an d eye irritation and subsequent infection for endangered beach mice. The fur will be matted a nd lose its insulation against heat and cold. Sweat glands, ear tissues, and throat tissues may be irritated or infected. Disruption of sight and hearing increases vulnerability of beach mice to predators. Other direct toxic effects may include asphyxiation from inhalation of fumes, oil ingesti on, and food contamination. Indirect impacts from oil spills would include reduc tion of food supply, destruction of habitat, and fouling of nests. Recovery of habitat from hurricanes involves a vital link between mouse food supply (involving seeds of dune-stabilizing vegetation) and habitat. The link is not unique to the beach mouse (it may occur in many habitats) and may be lost after an oil spill, and loss may result in
extinction of the beach mouse after later serious storms or hurricanes or further beachfront development disrupt habitat. Impacts can also occur from spill-response activities. Vehicular
traffic and other activities associated with oil- spill cleanup can degrade preferred habitat and cause displacement of mice from these areas without regulation.

The ranges of the four endangered subspecies of beach mice are shown in Figure 4-21 . For a WPA proposed action or a CPA proposed action, th e probabilities were low (<0.5%) that one or more offshore spills ∃ 1,000 bbl would occur and contact the shoreline inhabited by the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrews, and Perdido Key beach mice during the life of a proposed action (2007-2046).

There is no definitive information on the persisten ce of oil, in the event that a spill were to
contact beach mouse habitat. In Pr ince William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, buried oil has been measured in the intertidal zone of beaches, but no effort has been made to search for residual buried oil above high tide . Similarly, NRC (2003) makes no mention of studies of oil left above high tide after a spill. Rega rdless of the potential for persistence of oil in beach mouse habitat, a slick cannot wash over the fore dunes unless carried by a heavy storm swell. Oiling of beach mice could result in extinc tion if it happens on a large scale (over the entire range of one of the subspecies), but this is very unlikely, given the chance of impact to the habitat is less than 0.5 percent.

Summary and Conclusion Given the low probability of a major ( ∃ 1,000 bbl) spill occurring, direct impacts of oil spills on beach mice from a proposed action are highly unlikely. Oil-spill response and clean-up activities could have significant impact to the beach mi ce and their habitat if not properly regulated.32 Analysis of Spill Risk to Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key
Beach Mice

Risk from Offshore Spills >1,000 bbl Figure 4-21 provides the results of MMS’s analysis of the risk of a spill >1,000 bbl occurring offshore and reaching endangered beach mice habita t within 10 days as a result of a proposed action. There is a <0.5 percent chance that one or more offshore spills >1,000 bbl would occur and contact the shoreline inhabited by the Alab ama, Choctawhatchee, St . Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice during the life of a proposed action.

Risk from Offshore Spills <1,000 bbl For spills <1,000 bbl, only those >50 bbl would be expected to have a chance of persisting as a cohesive slick long enough for the slick to r each land. Few offshore spills 50-1,000 bbl are estimated to occur as a result of a proposed action, and few of these slicks are expected to occur proximate to State waters and to reach shore. Should a slick from such a spill make landfall, the volume of oil remaining in the slick is expected to be small.

Risk from Coastal Spills Few, if any, coastal spills are estimated to occur in Alabama or Florida coastal waters as a result of a proposed action, because OCS oil is not barged or pipelined to shore in Alabama or Florida,
the states where the beach mice are found.

MITIGATIONS

The MMS is responsible for managing, regulat ing, and monitoring oil and natural gas exploration, development, a nd production operations on the Federal OCS to promote orderly development of mineral resources and to prevent harm or damage to, or waste of, any natural resource, any life or property, or the marine, coast al, or human environment. Regulations for oil, gas, and sulphur lease operations are specified in 30 CFR 250, 30 CFR 251, and 30 CFR 254.

Measures to mitigate potential impa cts are an integral part of the OCS Program. These measures are implemented through lease stipulations, oper ating regulations, NTL’s, and project-specific requirements or approval conditi ons. Mitigating measures address concerns such as endangered and threatened species, geologic and manmade ha zards, military warning and ordnance disposal areas, air quality, oil-spill response planning, chemosynthetic communities, artificial reefs, operations in hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) prone areas, and shunting of drill effluents in the vicinity of biologically sensitive features.

The MMS issues NTL’s to provide clarification, description, or interpretation of a regulation; guidelines on the implementation of a special leas e stipulation or regional requirement; or convey administrative information. Conditions of appr oval are mechanisms to control or mitigate potential safety or environmental problems associat ed with proposed operations. Conditions of approval are based on MMS technical and environm ental evaluations of the proposed operations. Comments from Federal and State agencies (as a pplicable) are also considered in establishing conditions. Conditions may be ap plied to any OCS plan, permit, right-of-use of easement, or pipeline right-of-way grant.

Some MMS-identified mitigation measures are im plemented through coopera tive agreements or efforts with the oil and gas industry and Federa l and State agencies. Th ese measures include the NOAA Fisheries Service Observer Program to protect marine mammals and sea turtles when OCS structures are removed using explosives, labe ling of operational supplies to track sources of accidental debris loss, development of methods of pipeline landfall to eliminate impacts to barrier beaches, and semiannual beach cleanup events.33 Exploration Plans An EP must be submitted to MMS for review and decision before any exploration activities, except for preliminary activities, can begin on a lease. The EP describes exploration activities, drilling rig or vessel, proposed drilling and well- testing operations, envi ronmental monitoring plans, and other relevant information, and includes a proposed schedule of the exploration
activities. Guidelines and environmental inform ation requirements for lessees and operators submitting an EP are addressed in 30 CFR 250.211 and further ex plained in NTL’s 2006-G14 and 2006-G15. The NTL 2006-G14 provides guidance on information requirements and establishes the contents for OCS plans required by 30 CFR 250 Subpart B. This NTL, along with NTL 2006- G15, supersedes NTL 2003-G17. In the revised final S ubpart B regulations, the contents of an EP are given. The NTL 2006-G15 provides guidance for submitting OCS plans to the MMS GOMR.

After receiving an EP, MMS performs technical and environmental reviews. The MMS evaluates the proposed exploration activities for potentia l impacts relative to geohazards and manmade hazards (including existing pipelines), archaeo logical resources, endangered species, sensitive biological features, water and air quality, oil-sp ill response, State CZMA requirements, and other uses (e.g., military operations) of the OCS. The EP is reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

A CER or EA is prepared in support of the NEPA environmental review of the EP. The CER or EA is based on available information, which may include the geophysical report (for determining the potential for the presence of deepwater be nthic communities); archaeological report; air emissions data; live-bottom survey and report; bi ological monitoring plan; and recommendations by the affected State(s), DOD, FWS (for selected plans under provisions of a DOI agreement), NOAA Fisheries Service, and/or internal MMS offi ces. As part of the review process, most EP’s and supporting environmental information are sent to the affected State(s) for consistency
certification review and concurrence under the States’ approved Coastal Management Plans (CMP’s). After EP approval and prior to conducting drilling opera tions, the operator is required to submit and obtain approval for an Application for Permit to Drill (APD).

Deepwater Operations Plans In 1992, MMS formed an internal Deepwate r Task Force to address technical issues and regulatory concerns relating to deepwater (greater than 1,000 ft or 305 m) operations and projects utilizing subsea technology. Based on the Deep water Task Force’s recommendation, an NTL (2000-N06) was developed, which required operato rs to submit a Deepwater Operations Plan (DWOP) for all operations in deep water (400 m (1,312 ft) or greater) and all projects using subsea technology. DeepStar, an industry-wid e cooperative workgroup focused on deepwater regulatory issues and critical technology development issues, worked closely with the MMS Deepwater Task Force to develop the initial guidelines for the DWOP. The DWOP was established to address regulatory issues and concer ns that were not addressed in the existing MMS regulatory framework, and it is intended to initiate an early dialogue between MMS and industry before major capital expenditures on deepwater and subsea projects are committed. Deepwater technology has been evolving faster than MMS’s ability to revise OCS regulations; the DWOP was established through the NTL pr ocess, which provides for a more timely and flexible approach to keep pace with the expa nding deepwater operations and subsea technology. On August 30, 2005, the DWOP requirements were incorporated into MMS operating regulations via revisions to 30 CFR 250 Subpart B.

The DWOP is intended to address the different functional requirements of production equipment in deep water, particularly the technological requirements associated with subsea production systems, and the complexity of deepwater pr oduction facilities. The DWOP provides MMS with information specific to deepwater equipment issues to demonstrate that a deepwater project is being developed in an acceptable manner as manda ted in the OCSLA, as amended, and the MMS operating regulations at 30 CFR 250. The MMS re views deepwater development activities from a total system perspective, emphasizing opera tional safety, environmental protection, and34 conservation of natural resources. The DWOP pr ocess is a phased approach that parallels the operator’s state of knowledge about how a field will be developed. A DWOP outlines the design, fabrication, and installation of the proposed development/production system and its components. A DWOP will include structural aspects of the f acility (fixed, floating, subsea); stationkeeping (includes mooring system); wellbore, completion, and riser systems; safety systems; offtake; and hazards and operability of the production sy stem. The DWOP provides MMS with the information to determine that the operator has d esigned and built sufficient safeguards into the production system to prevent the occurrence of significant safety or environmental incidents. The DWOP, in conjunction with other permit applica tions, provides MMS the opportunity to assure that the production system is suitable for the conditions in which it will operate.

The MMS recently completed a review of sever al industry-developed, recommended practices that address the mooring and risers for floating production facilities. The recommended practices address such things as riser design, mooring syst em design (stationkeeping), and hazard analysis. The MMS is in the process of incorporating these recommended practices into the existing regulations. Hazard analyses allow MMS to be assured that the operator has anticipated emergencies and is prepared to address such, eith er through their design or through the operation of the equipment in question.

Development Operations and Coordination Documents Before any development operations can begin on a lease in the proposed lease sale area, a DOCD
must be submitted to MMS for review and decision. A DOCD describes the proposed development activities, drilling activities, platfo rms or other facilities, proposed production operations, environmental monitoring plans, and other relevant information, and it includes a proposed schedule of development and producti on activities. Requirements for lessees and operators submitting a DOCD are addressed in 30 CFR 250.241-250.242, and information guidelines for DOCD’s are given in NTL’s 2006-G14 and 2006-G15.

After receiving a DOCD, MMS performs techni cal and environmental reviews. The MMS evaluates the proposed activity for potential imp acts relative to geohazards and manmade hazards (including existing pipelines), archaeological r esources, endangered species, sensitive biological features, water and air quality, oil-spill response, State CZMA requirements, and other uses (e.g., military operations) of the OCS. The DOCD is revi ewed for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

A CER, EA, and/or EIS are prepared in support of the NEPA environmental review of a DOCD. The CER, EA, and/or EIS is based on available information, which may include the geophysical report (for determining the potential for the presence of deepwater benthic communities); archaeological report; air emissions data; live-bo ttom survey and report; biological monitoring plan; and recommendations by the affected State(s), DOD, FWS (for selected plans under provisions of a DOI agreement), NOAA Fisheri es Service, and/or internal MMS offices.

As part of the review process, the DOCD and supporting environmental information may be sent to the affected State(s) for consistency certifi cation review and determ ination under the States’ federally approved coastal program. The OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1345(a) through (d) and 43 U.S.C. 1351(a)(3)) provides for this coordination and cons ultation with the affected State and local governments concerning a DOCD.

Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act
The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and C ontrol Act of 1987 (MPPRCA) (33 U.S.C. 1901 et

seq .) implements Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Under provisions of the law, a ll ships and watercraft, including all commercial and recreational fishing vessels, are prohibited from dumping plastics at sea. The law also severely restricts the legality of dumping other vessel-generated garbage and solid-waste items both at sea and in U.S. navigable waters. The USCG is responsible for enforcing the provisions of35 this law and has developed final rules for its implementation (33 CFR 151, 155, and 158), calling for adequate trash reception facilities at all ports , docks, marinas, and boat-launching facilities.

The GOM has received “Special Area” status under MARPOL, thereby prohibiting the disposal
of all solid waste into the marine environment. Fixed and floating platforms, drilling rigs, manned production platforms, and support vessels operating under a Federal oil and gas lease are required to develop waste management plans and to pos t placards reflecting discharge limitations and
restrictions.

Waste Management Plans require oil and gas ope rators to describe procedures for collecting, processing, storing, and discharging garbage and to designate the person who is in charge of carrying out the plan. The MMS regulations explicitly prohibit the disposal of equipment, cables, chains, containers, or other mate rials into offshore waters. Portable equipment, spools or reels, drums, pallets, and other loose items must be ma rked in a durable manner with the owner’s name prior to use or transport over offshore waters. Smaller objects must be stored in a marked container when not in use. These rules also apply to all oceangoing ships of 12 m (39 feet (ft)) or more in length that are documented under the laws of the U.S. or numbered by a State and that are equipped with a galley and berthing. Placards no ting discharge limitations and restrictions, as well as penalties for noncompliance, apply to all boa ts and ships 8 m (26 ft) or more in length. Furthermore, the Shore Protection Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C. 2601 et seq .) requires ships transporting garbage and refuse to assure that the garbage and refuse is properly contained onboard so that it will not be lost in the wa ter from inclement wind or weather conditions.

Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act The Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (P.L l09-449) was enacted in December 2006. The purposes of this Act are (1) to help identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its a dverse impacts on the marine environment and navigation safety; (2) to reactivate the Interage ncy Marine Debris Coordinating Committee; and (3) to develop a Federal marine debris information clearinghouse. The Act established, within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio n, a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program to reduce and prevent the occurrence a nd adverse impacts of marine debris on the marine environment and navigation safety.

Under the program, the Administrator shall (1) in consultation with relevant Federal agencies, undertake marine debris mapping, identification, impact assessment, prevention, and removal efforts, with a focus on marine debris posing a threat to living marine resources and navigation safety; (2) improve efforts to reduce adverse imp acts of lost and discarded fishing gear on living marine resources and navigation safety; (3) undert ake outreach and education of the public andother stakeholders, such as the fishing industry, fishing gear manufacturers, and other marinedependent industries, and the plastic and wast e management industries, on sources of marine debris, threats associated with marine debris a nd approaches to identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment and navigational safety, including outreach and educa tion activities through public-private initiatives; and (4) acting through the Program, enter into co operative agreements and contracts and provide financial assistance in the form of grants for projects to accomplish the purpose set forth in the
Act.

As stated in Section 8, nothing in this Act supers edes, or limits the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).

Marine Debris Elimination and Awareness Notice To Lessees
The Marine Debris Elimination and Awareness NTL requires operators to place placards in prominent places on vessels and structures and to encourage awareness and minimize the36 unintentional and accidental release of debris. Offshore workers are required to attend annual marine debris awareness training. The text of the NTL is available on the MMS website at

www.mms.gov.

Protected Species Lease Stipulation A protected species stipulation has been applied to all blocks leased in the GOM since 2001. This stipulation would be a part of any lease resu lting from the proposed actions, i.e., Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222. The stipulation reads as follows:

Protected Species Stipulation To reduce the potential taking of federally prot ected species (e.g., sea turtles, marine mammals, Gulf sturgeon, and other listed species): (a) The MMS will condition all permits issu ed to lessees and their operators to require them to collect and remove fl otsam resulting from activities related to exploration, development, a nd production of this lease. (b) The MMS will condition all permits i ssued to lessees and their operators to require them to post signs in prominent places on all vessels and platforms
used as a result of activities related to e xploration, development, and production of this lease detailing the reasons (leg al and ecological) why release of debris
must be eliminated. (c) The MMS will require that vessel operators and crews watch for marine mammals and sea turtles, reduce ves sel speed to 10 knots or less when assemblages of cetaceans are observed and maintain a distance of 90 m or greater from whales, and a distance of 45 m or greater from small cetaceans and sea
turtles. (d) The MMS will require that all seismic surveys employ mandatory mitigation measures including the use of a 500-meter “exclusion zone” based upon the appropriate water depth, ramp- up and shut-down procedures, visual monitoring and reporting. Seismic operations must immediately cease when
certain marine mammals are detected within the 500-meter exclusion zone. Ramp-up procedures and seismic surveys may be initiated only during daylight unless alternate monitoring met hods approved by MMS are used. (e) The MMS will require lessees and oper ators to instruct offshore personnel to immediately report all sightings and locations of injured or dead protected species (marine mammals and sea turtles) to the appropriate stranding network. If oil and gas industry activity is responsible for the injured or dead animals (e.g. because of a vessel strike), the respons ible parties should remain available to assist the stranding network. If the injury or death was caused by a collision with your vessel, you must notify MMS within 24 hours of the strike. (f) The MMS will require oil spill contingency planning to identify important habitats, including designated critical hab itat, used by listed species (e.g. sea turtle nesting beaches, piping plover critical habitat), and require the strategic placement of spill cleanup equipment to be used only by personnel trained in less-intrusive cleanup techniques on beach and bay shores.

Lessees and operators will be instructed how to implement these mitigation measures in NTL’s. This stipulation was developed in consultation with NOAA Fisheries Service and FWS, and is designed to minimize or avoid potential adver se impacts to federally protected species.

Oil Spill Mitigation Measures Oil spills are accidental, unplanned events inci dental to an otherwise legal activity (oil production). Large oil spills associated with OCS activities are low-probability events. However, should one occur, it has the highest potential of industry-related impacts to adversely affect coastal birds, and nesting and hatchling sea tur tles. Public input through scoping meetings and37 Federal and State agencies’ input through consultation and coordi nation indicate that oil spills continue to be a major issue. The MMS and ot her responsible agencies have incorporated numerous regulations and mitigations to minimi ze the potential for adverse impact to the environment and the species.

Spill Prevention Beginning in the 1980's, MMS established comprehe nsive pollution prevention requirements that include redundant safety systems, as well as insp ection and testing requirements to confirm that these devices are working properly

. An overall reduction in spill volume has occurred over the past 40 years while oil production has generally increased. The MMS attributes this improvement to MMS operational requirements, ongoing efforts by the oil and gas industry to enhance safety and pollution prevention, and the evolution and improvement of offshore technology.

Part of those safety systems are subsurface safety valves (SSSV) and downhole safety valves (DSV). Should a platform be damaged, these valves “shut-in” production flow to prevent pollution events until the production can be safel y reestablished. During Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and Rita, these valves performed successfully (U .S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 2005; USDOI, MMS, 2005).

Likelihood of an Offshore Spill <1,000 bbl Occurring and Contacting Modeled
Locations of Environmental Resources Because spills <1,000 bbl are not expected to pe rsist as a slick on the surface of the water beyond a few days and because spills on the OCS would occur at least 3-10 nmi from shore, it is unlikely that any spills would make landfall prior to breaking up. For an offshore spill <1,000 bbl to make landfall, the spill would have to occur proximate to State waters (defined as 3-12 mi from shore). If a spill were to occur proximate to State waters , only a spill >50 bbl would be expected to have a chance of persisting long enough to reach la nd. Spills >50 and <1,000 bbl size are very infrequent. Should such a spill occur, the volume th at would make landfall would be expected to be extremely small (a few barrels). These assumpti ons are supported by a previous analysis of 3- day trajectory model runs, previous weathering anal yses, and historical records of spill incidents.

Likelihood of Coastal Spill Contact with Various Resources The coastal spill rate is based on historical spills and the projected amount of oil production. For the purpose of this analysis, coastal spills are assu med to occur where oil production is brought to shore. Because the majority of oil production fr om a WPA proposed action is projected to be brought to shore in the Galveston/ Houston/Texas City Area, it is assumed the majority of coastal spills from a WPA proposed action will also occur in th is area. It is projected that the majority of oil production for a CPA proposed action will be brought to shore in eastern Louisiana, from Atchafalaya Bay to east of the Mississippi River. Based on this assumption the majority of coastal spills are projected to occur in this area, in cluding one spill >1,000 bbl (assumed size 3,000 bbl) estimated to occur as the result of a CPA proposed action.

Analysis of Spill Risk to Sensitive Coastal Environments
Sensitive coastal environments located in the GOM consist primarily of coastal barrier beaches, wetlands, and seagrass communities.

Risk from Offshore Spills >1,000 bbl Because of the widespread distribution of sens itive coastal environments along the Gulf Coast, specific resource locations were not analyzed by the OSRA model trajectory simulations. The probabilities of an offshore spill >1,000 bbl occurring and contacting coastal counties and parishes was used as an indicator of the risk of a slick from such a spill reaching sensitive coastal
environments. Figures 4-13 and 4-14 show the GOM coastal counties and parishes having a risk >0.5 percent of being contacted within 10 da ys by an offshore spill >1,000 bbl occurring as a result of a proposed action. Most counties and pa rishes have a <0.5 percent probability of a spill >1,000 bbl occurring and contacti ng (combined probability) their shorelines within 10 days; six counties in Texas and eight parishes in Louisiana have a 1-15 percent chance of an OCS offshore38 spill >1,000 bbl occurring and reaching their shore line within 10 days. In Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish has the greatest risk (10-15%) of a spill occurring and contacting its shoreline within 10 days as a result of a CPA proposed action. In Te xas, Matagorda County has the greatest risk (3- 5%) of being contacted within 10 days by a spill occurring offshore as a result of a WPA proposed action.

Risk from Offshore Spills <1,000 bbl For spills <1,000 bbl, only those >50 bbl would be expected to have a chance of persisting as a cohesive slick long enough for the slick to r each land. Few offshore spills 50-1,000 bbl are estimated to occur as a result of a proposed action, and few of these slicks are expected to occur proximate to State waters and to reach shore. Should a slick from such a spill make landfall, the volume of oil remaining in the slick is expected to be small.

Risk from Coastal Spills Approximately 61-136 spills are estimated to o ccur within Gulf coastal waters from activities supporting the WPA and CPA proposed actions combined. Most (about 90%) of these spills

would be # 1 bbl. The most likely locations of the estimated 6-15 coastal spills >1 bbl would be proximate to the major oil pipeline shore faciliti es. Except for two 3,000-bbl spills estimated to
occur in Louisiana and Texas coastal waters under the high resource-estimate scenario, MMS estimates that coastal spills >1,000 bbl r esulting from a proposed action will have a low probability of occurrence.

Based on the assumption that spill occurrence is proportional to the volume of oil handled,
sensitive coastal environments located near the coastal waters of the Galveston/Houston/Texas City area have the greatest risk of being contacted by coastal spills related to a proposed action in the WPA. A total of 80 percent of all oil estimat ed to be produced as a result of a proposed action in the WPA is projected to be to be brought in to this area. Sensitive coastal environments in eastern Louisiana, from Atchafalaya Bay to east of the Mississippi River, including Barataria Bay, have the greatest risk of being contacted by spills from operations related to a CPA proposed action. The greatest risk of contact would be from the assumed 3,000-bbl spill should it occur
within or near wetlands.

Pipelines Regulatory processes and jurisdictional authority concerning pipelines on the OCS and in coastal areas are shared by several Federal agencies, including DOI, DOT, COE, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the USCG. Aside from pipeline regulations, these agencies have the responsibility of overseeing and regula ting the following areas: the placement of structures on the OCS and pipelines in areas that affect navigation; the certification of proposed projects involving the transportation or sale of in terstate natural gas, including OCS gas; and the right of eminent domain exercised by pipeline companies onshore. In addition, DOT is responsible for promulgating and enforcing safet y regulations for the transportation in or affecting interstate commerce of natural gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and hazardous liquids by pipeline. This includes, for the most part, offshore pipelines on State lands beneath navigable waters and on the OCS that are operated by transmission companies. The regulations are contained in 49 CFR 191 through 193 and 1 95. In a MOU between DOT and DOI dated December 10, 1996, each party’s respective regul atory responsibilities are outlined. The DOT is responsible for establishing and enforcing desi gn, construction, opera tion, and maintenance regulations, and for investigating accidents for all OCS transportation pipelines beginning downstream of the point at which operating res ponsibility transfers from a producing operator to a transporting operator. The DOI’s responsibilit y extends upstream from the transfer point
described above.

The MMS is responsible for regulatory oversight of the design, installation, and maintenance of OCS producer-operated oil and gas pipelines. Th e MMS operating regulations for pipelines found at 30 CFR 250 Subpart J are intended to provide safe and pollution-free transportation of fluids in39 a manner that does not unduly interfere with othe r users of the OCS. Pipeline applications are usually submitted and reviewed separately from DOCD’s. Pipelin e applications may be for onlease pipelines or right-of-way for pipelines that cross other lessees’ leases or unleased areas of the OCS. Pipeline permit applications to MMS include the pipeline location drawing, profile drawing, safety schematic drawing, pipe design data, a shallow hazard survey report, and an archaeological report, if applicable.

The DOI has regulatory responsibility for all producer-operated pipelines. The DOI’s responsibility extends downstream from the first pr oduction well to the last valve and associated safety equipment on the last OCS-related production system along the pipeline. The DOT’s regulatory responsibility extends shoreward from the last valve on the last OCS-related production facility.

The MMS evaluates the design, fabrication, insta llation, and maintenance of all OCS pipelines. Proposed pipeline routes are evaluated for potential seafloor or subsea geologic hazards and other
natural or manmade seafloor or subsurface featur es or conditions (including other pipelines) that could have an adverse impact on th e pipeline or that could be adversely impacted by the proposed operations. Routes are also evaluated for potential impacts on archaeological resources and biological communities. A NEPA review is conduc ted in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines. The MMS prepares an EA on all pipelin e rights-of-way that go ashore. For Federal consistency, applicants must comply with the requirements of NTL 2002-G15. All Gulf States require consistency review of ROW pipeline a pplications as described in the subject NTL.

The design of the proposed pipeline is evaluated for an appropriate cathodic protection system to protect the pipeline from leaks resulting from the e ffects of external corrosion of the pipe; an external pipeline coating system to prolong the ser vice life of the pipeline; measures to protect the inside of the pipeline from the detrimental effects, if any, of the fluids being transported; the submersibility of the line (i.e., that the pipeline will remain in place on the seafloor and not have the potential to float, even if empty or filled with gas rather than liquids); proposed operating pressure of the line, and protection of other pipelines crossing the proposed route. Such an evaluation includes (1) reviewing the calculations used by the applicant in order to determine whether the applicant properly considered such elem ents as the grade of pipe to be used, the wall thickness of the pipe, derating factors related to the submerged and riser portions of the pipeline, the pressure rating of any valves or flanges to be installed in the pipeline, the pressure rating of any other pipeline(s) into which the proposed lin e might be tied, the required pressure to which the line must be tested before it is placed in service; (2) protective safety devices such as pressure sensors and remotely operated valves, the physical arrangement of those devices proposed to be installed by the applicant for the purposes of protecting the pipeline from possible overpressure conditions and for detecting and initiating a res ponse to abnormally low-pressure conditions; and (3) the applicant’s planned compliance with regulati ons requiring that pipelines installed in water depths less than 200 ft (61 m) be buried to a depth of at least 3 ft (1 m) (30 CFR 250.1003). In addition, pipelines crossing fairways require a CO E permit and must be buried to a depth of at least 10 ft (3 m) and to 16 ft (5 m) if crossing an anchorage area.

Operators are required to periodically inspect pipeline routes. Monthly overflights are conducted to inspect pipeline routes for leakage.

Applications for pipeline decommissioning must also be submitted for MMS review and approval. Decommissioning applications are eval uated to ensure they will render the pipeline inert and/or to minimize the potential for the pi peline becoming a source of pollution by flushing and plugging the ends; and to minimize the like lihood that the decommissioned line will become an obstruction to other users of the OCS by filling it with water and burying the ends.

Natural Seepage40 Natural seeps provide the largest petroleum input to the offshore GOM, about 95 percent of the total. Estimates have ranged from 28,000 bbl per year to 204,000 bbl of oil per year (McDonald, 1998; Wilson et al., 1973). Using commercial re mote-sensing data, Mitchell et al. (1999) estimated a range of 280,000 bbl to 700,000 bbl pe r year with an average of 490,000 bbl for the northern GOM, excluding the Bay of Campeche. Using this estimate and assuming seep scales are proportional to surface area, the NRC (2003) estimated annual seepage for the entire GOM at about 980,000 bbl per year. As seepage is a natural occurrence, the rate is expected to remain the same throughout the 40-year analysis period

Trends in Reported Spill Volumes and Numbers Databases on spills that have occurred in the GOM are not comprehensive. As almost 38 percent of all U.S. spills have occurred within the waters of the GOM and Gulf Coast States, the trends for all U.S. spills is assumed to be representative of trends in spills that have occurred in the northern GOM. The following is a summary of what is known about trends in U.S. spill risk and
is derived from USCG data through 2004. Comprehensive data on spills for 2005 is not yet available (USDOT, Coast Guard, 2007):

Volumes

• The volume of reported spill incidents in U.S. waters has been on a steady
downward trend since 1973. There has b een a general downward trend in the number of spills over 24 bbl (1,000 gallons).

• There has been no oil spills reported over 23,810 bbl (1 million gallons) since 1991. The total volume spilled in 2003 is at the lowest amount in over 25 years.

• The majority of reported spills since 1973 involved discharges between 0.024 and 2.4 bbl (1 and 100 gallons).

• The decline in oil-spill volume, particularly in the face of growing domestic demand for imported oil, represents the combined effects of an increasingly effective campaign of positive preventi on and preparedness initiatives to protect U.S. coastal waters from oil pollution.

Number

• Prior to 2002, the total number of repor ted spill incidents remained relatively constant from year to year.

• The total number of reported spill incide nts dropped dramatically in 2002 and remained relatively constant from 2002 to 2004.

Location

• Most (74.6%) of all reported spills fro m 1973 to 2004 occurred within 3 nmi of
shore.

• Most (83.6%) of the volume of all repor ted spills occurred in waters within 3
nmi of shore.

Sources

• Spills from tank vessels (ships/barges) account for the majority of volume spilled: 46.7 percent of the volume of oil spilled from 1973 to 2004 came from tank vessels; 22 percent from facilities and other non-vessels; 17.3 percent from pipelines; 7.7 percent from mystery spills; and 6 percent from non-tank vessels.

• 33.1 percent of the number of all spills from 1973 to 2004 occurred from nontank vessels; 25.1 percent were “mystery” spills; 28.8 percent were from facilities and other non-vessels; 9.8 percent were from tank vessels (ships and barges carrying oil); and 3.2 percent were from pipelines.

• The rates for oil spills ∃ 1,000 bbl from OCS platforms, tankers, and barges
continues to decline.41 Types of Oil

• A combination of crude oil and heavy oil is the type of oil with the greatest volumes spilled (61.7%).

• Crude oil and heavy oil were the most frequent types of oil spilled (34.7% of the number of spills from 1973 to 2004 were the discharge of crude oil or heavy oil).

Inspection and Enforcement The OCSLA authorizes and requires MMS to provi de for both an annual scheduled inspection and a periodic unscheduled (unannounced) inspecti on of all oil and gas operations on the OCS. The inspections are to assure compliance with all regulatory constraints that allowed commencement of the operation.

The primary objective of an initial inspection is to assure proper installation of mobile drilling units and fixed structures, and proper functionality of their safety and pollution prevention equipment. After operations begin, additio nal announced and unannoun ced inspections are conducted. Unannounced inspecti ons are conducted to foster a climate of safe operations, to maintain an MMS presence, and to focus on ope rators with a poor performance record. These inspections are also conducted after a critical safe ty feature has previously been found defective. Poor performance generally means that more frequent, unannounced inspections may be conducted on a violator’s operation.

The annual inspection examines all safety equipmen t designed to prevent blowouts, fires, spills, or other major accidents. These annual inspectio ns involve the inspection for installation and performance of all platform safety-system components.

The inspectors follow the guidelines as establishe d by the regulations, API RP 14C, and the specific MMS-approved plan. The MMS inspectors perform these inspections using a national checklist called the Potential Incident of Noncomp liance (PINC) list. This list is a compilation of yes/no questions derived from all regulated saf ety and environmental requirements. The MMS administers an active civil penalties program (30 CFR 250, Subpart N). A civil penalty in the form of substantial monetary fines may be issu ed against any operator that commits a violation that may constitute a threat of serious, irreparable, or immediate harm or damage to life, property, or the environment. The MMS may make recomme ndations for criminal penalties if a willful violation occurs. In addition, the regulation at 30 CFR 250.173(a) authorizes suspension of any operation in the GOM Region if the lessee has failed to comply with a provision of any applicable law, regulation, or order or provision of a lease or permit. Furthermore, the Secretary may invoke his authority under 30 CFR 250.185(c) to cancel a nonproductive lease with no compensation. Exploration and development activities may be canceled under 30 CFR 250.182 and 250.183.

Pollution Prevention Pollution prevention is addressed through proper d esign and requirements for safety devices. The MMS regulations at 30 CFR 250.400 require that the operator take all necessary precautions to keep its wells under control at all times. The lessee is required to use the best available and safest drilling technology in order to en hance the evaluation of conditions of abnormal pressure and to minimize the potential for the well to flow or kick. Redundancy is provided for critical safety
devices that will shut off flow from the well if loss of control is encountered.

In addition, MMS regulations at 30 CFR 250.5 00, 250.600, and 250.800 require that the lessee assure the safety and protection of the human , marine, and coastal environments during completion, workover, and produc tion operations. All production f acilities, including separators, treaters, compressors, headers, and flowlines are required to be designed, installed, tested, maintained, and used in a manner that provides fo r efficiency, safety of operations, and protection of the environment. Wells, particularly subsea we lls, include a number of sensors that help in detecting pressures and the potential for leaks in the production system. Safety devices are42 monitored and tested frequently to ensure their opera tion, should an incident occur. To ensure that safety devices are operating properly, MMS incor porates the American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 14C into the operati ng regulations. API RP 14C incorporates the knowledge and experience of the oil and gas industr y regarding the analysis, design, installation, and testing of the safety devices used to prevent pollution. API RP 14C presents proven practices for providing these safety devices for offshore produ ction platforms. Proper application of these practices, along with good design, maintenance, and operation of the entire production facility, should provide an operationally safe and pollution-free production platform.

Also, MMS regulations at 30 CFR 250.1000 require th at pipelines and associated valves, flanges, and fittings be designed, installed, operated , maintained, and abandoned to provide safe and pollution-free transportation of fluids in a manner that does not unduly interfere with other uses
on the OCS.

The MMS regulation at 30 CFR 250.300(a) requires that lessees not create conditions that will pose an unreasonable risk to public health, life, property, aquatic life, wildlife, recreation, navigation, commercial fishing, or other uses of the ocean during offshor e oil and gas operations. The lessee is required to take measures to preven t the unauthorized discharge of pollutants into the offshore waters. Control and removal of pollu tion is the responsibility and at the expense of
the lessee. Immediate corrective action to a pollution event is required. All hydrocarbon-handling equipment for testing and production, such as separ ators, tanks, and treaters, are required to be designed, installed, and operated to prevent pollu tion. Maintenance and repairs that are necessary to prevent pollution is required to be taken immediately. Drilling and production facilities are required to be inspected daily or at interval s approved or prescribed by the MMS District Supervisor to determine if pollution is occurring.

Operators are required to install curbs, gutters, drip pans, and drains on platform and rig deck areas in a manner necessary to collect all contaminan ts and debris not authorized for discharge. The rules also explicitly prohibit the disposal of equipment, cables, chains, containers, or other materials into offshore waters. Portable equipment, spools or reels, drums, pallets, and other loose
items must be marked in a durable manner with the owner’s name prior to use or transport over offshore waters. Smaller objects must be stored in a marked container when not in use. Operational discharges such as produced water and drilling muds and cuttings are regulated by the USEPA through the NPDES program. The MMS may restrict the rate of drilling fluid discharge or prescribe alternative discharge met hods. No petroleum based substances, including diesel fuel, may be added to the drilling mud system without prior approval of the MMS District Supervisor.

Oil-Spill Response Plans The MMS’s responsibilities under OPA 90 include sp ill prevention, review, and approval of oilspill response plans (OSRP); inspection of oil-sp ill containment and cleanup equipment; and ensuring oil-spill financial responsibility for fac ilities in offshore waters located seaward of the coastline or in any portion of a bay that is connect ed to the sea either directly or through one or more other bays. The MMS regulations (30 CFR 254) require that all owners and operators of oilhandling, storage, or transportation facilities lo cated seaward of the coastline submit an OSRP for approval. The term “coastline” means the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the ope n sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters. The term “facility” means any structure, gr oup of structures, equipment, or device (other than a vessel), which is used for one or more of the following purposes: exploring for, drilling for, producing, storing, handling, transferring, processing, or transporting oil. A MODU is classified as a facility when engaged in drilling or downhole operations.

The regulation at 30 CFR 254.2 requires that an OS RP must be submitted a nd approved before an operator can use a facility. The MMS can grant an exception to this requirement during the MMS review of an operator’s submitted OSRP. In order to be granted this exception during this time43 period, an owner/operator must certify in writing to MMS that it is capable of responding to a “worst-case” spill or the substantial threat of su ch a spill. To continue operations, the facility must be operated in compliance with the approved OSRP or the MMS-accepted “worst-case” spill certification. Owners or operators of offshor e pipelines are required to submit an OSRP for any pipeline that carries oil, condensate, or g as with condensate; pipelines carrying essentially dry gas do not require an OSRP. Current OSRP’s are required for abandoned facilities until they are physically removed or dismantled.

The OSRP describes how an operator intends to r espond to an oil spill. The OSRP may be site specific or regional (30 CFR 254.3). The term “reg ional” means a spill response plan that covers multiple facilities or leases of an owner or opera tor, including affiliates, which are located in the same MMS GOM Region. Although Regional OSRP ’s have not been allowed for facilities subject to the State of Florida consistency revi ew in the past, MMS has recently initiated a new policy accepting subregional plans for this area. Th e subregional plan concept is similar to the regional concept, which allows leases or facilitie s to be grouped together for the purposes of (1) calculating response times, (2) determining quantiti es of response equipment, (3) conducting oilspill trajectory analyses, (4) determining worst-ca se discharge scenarios, and (5) identifying areas of special economic and environmental importance that may be impacted and the strategies for their protection. The number and location of the leases and facilities allowed to be covered by a subregional OSRP will be decided by MMS on a case-by-case basis considering the proximity of the leases or facilities proposed to be covered. NTL 2006-G21 includes guidance on the preparation and submittal of subregional OSRP’s.

The Emergency Response Action Plan within the OS RP serves as the core of the MMS required OSRP. In accordance with 30 CFR 254.23, th e Emergency Response Action Plan requires identification of (1) the qualified individual and the spill-response management team, (2) the spill-response operating team, (3) the oil-spill res ponse removal organizations under contract for response, and (4) the Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies that an owner/operator must notify or that they must consult with to obtain site-specific environmental information when an oil spill occurs. The OSRP is also required to in clude an inventory of appropriate equipment and materials, their availability, and the time n eeded for deployment, as well as information pertaining to dispersant use, in situ burning, a worse-case discharge scenario, contractual agreements, and training and drills . The response plan must provide for response to an oil spill from their facility and the operator must immediately carry out the provisions of the plan whenever an oil spill from the fac ility occurs. The OSRP must be in compliance with the National Contingency Plan and the Area Contingency Plan(s) (ACP). The operator is also required to carry out the training, equipment testing, and periodic drills described in the OSRP. All MMS-approved OSRP’s must be reviewed at least every two years.

Memorandum of Understanding and Memora nda of Agreements Between MMS and Coast
Guard Since the MMS and USCG have closely related ju risdiction over different aspects of safety and operations on the OCS, the agencies have est ablished a formal MOU that delineates lead responsibilities for managing OCS activities in accordance with OCSLA, as amended, and OPA 90. The latest MOU, dated September 30, 2004, supersedes the August 1989 and December 1998 versions of the interagency agreement. The MOU is designed to minimize duplication and promote consistent regulation of facilities under the jurisdiction of both agencies. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) OCS No.1 —Agency Responsibilities, between MMS and USCG, dated September 30, 2004, further clarif ies the technical and process section of the MMS/USCG MOU. The MOA requires the particip ating agencies to review their internal procedures and, where appropriate, revise them to accommodate the provisions of the September
2004 MOA. To facilitate coordination with US CG, MMS has established a full-time position within the Office of Offshore Regulatory Progr ams to provide liaison between the agencies.44 Generally, the MOU identifies MMS as the lead agency for matters concerning the equipment and operations directly involved in the produc tion of oil and gas. These include, among others, design and operation of risers, permanent moor ing foundations of the facility, drilling and well production and services, inspection and testing of all drilling-related equipment, and platform decommissioning. Issues regarding certain aspects of safe operation of the facility, its systems, and equipment generally fall under the jurisdic tion of the USCG. These include, among others, design of vessels, their seakeeping characteristics, propulsion and dynamic positioning systems, supply and lightering procedures and equipmen t, utility systems, safety equipment and procedures, and pollution prevention and response procedures. In 2002, MMS was authorized to inspect USCG-related safety items on fixed facilities on the OCS.

Generally, the MOA identifies agency respons ibilities (i.e., agency representatives for the purpose of keeping each other informed of is sues, relevant applications, routine policy
determinations and to c oordinate joint activities), civil penalti es (i.e., USCG refers civil penalty cases to the MMS), oil-spill financial responsib ility (OSFR) (i.e., MMS determines and provides OSFR-related information to the USCG upon re quest), oil-spill preparedness and response planning (i.e., MMS requires responsible parti es to maintain approved oil-spill-response plans consistent with Area Contingency Plans and the National Contingency Plan; personnel receive training and response equipment is inspected; join tly approve floating oil storage facilities; and advise MMS of spill-response activities), oil-sp ill response (i.e., reporting all spills to the National Response Center and direct measures to abate sources of pollution from an OCS facility), accident investigations (i.e., MMS and USCG responsible for investigating and preparing report of fires, spillage, injury, fatalit y and blowouts and collisi ons and allisions), and offshore facility system/subsystem responsibility matr ix (identifies lead agency responsible for MODU, fixed, and floating systems and subsystem and coordinates with other agencies as appropriate). On April 18, 2005, MMS and USCG met to identify MOA’s that needed to be developed and to prioritize work. The following su bject areas were selected: (a) civil penalties; (b) incident investigations; (c) offshore secur ity; (d) oil-spill planning, preparedness, and response; (e) deepwater ports; (f) digital datab ases; (g) mobile offshore drilling units (MODU’s); (h) fixed platforms; (i) floating platforms; (j) floating, production, storage, and offloading units (FPSO’s); and (k) incident reporting. Joint agen cy teams have been established to develop the MOA’s for the first five subject areas. In add ition, an MOA is also being pursued to address renewable energy and alternate use of the OCS. The Civil Penalties MOA was approved on September 12, 2006. The Oil-Spill Planning MOA h as been drafted and is under legal counsel
review with USCG and DOI. The Incident Inv estigation MOA has undergone regional review and is proceeding toward finalization.

The Oil Pollution Act The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA or OPA 90) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq .) is comprehensive legislation that includes, in part, provisions to (1) improve oil-spill prevention, preparedness, and response capability; (2) establish limitations on lia bility for damages resulting from oil pollution; and (3) implement a fund for the payment of compensation for such damages.

The OPA, in part, revised Section 311 of the CWA to expand Federal spill-response authority; increase penalties for spills; estab lish U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), prepositioned, oil-spill response equipment sites; require vessel and facility response plans; and provide for interagency contingency plans. Many of the statutory ch anges required corresponding revisions to the
National Oil and Hazardous Substa nces Pollution Contingency Plan.

If a spill or substantial threat of a spill of oil or a hazardous substance from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility is considered to be of su ch a size or character to be a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the U.S., under provisions of the Act, the President (through the USCG) now has the authority to direct all Federal, State, and private actions to remove a spill or to mitigate or prevent the threat of the spill. Po tential impacts from spills of oil or a hazardous substance to fish, shellfish, wildlife, other natu ral resources, or the public and private beaches of45 the U.S. would be an example of the degree or type of threat considered to be of such a size or character to be a substantial threat to the U.S. pu blic health or welfare. In addition, the USCG’s authority to investigate marine accidents involving foreign tankers was expanded to include accidents in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) . The Act also established USCG oil-spill, district response groups (including equipment a nd personnel) in each of the 10 USCG districts, with a national response unit, the National Strike Force Coordination Center, located in Elizabeth City, North Carolina.

The OPA strengthened spill planning and prevention activities by providing for the establishment of interagency spill contingency plans for areas of the U.S. To achieve this goal, Area Committees composed of qualified Federal, State, and local officials were created to develop Area Contingency Plans. The OPA mandates that contingency plans address the response to a “worst case” oil spill or a substantial threat of su ch a spill. It also required that vessels and both onshore and offshore facilities have response plans approved by the President. These plans were required to adhere to specified requirements, including the demonstration that they had contracted with private parties to provide the personnel a nd equipment necessary to respond to or mitigate a “worst case” spill. In addition, the Act provided for increased penalties for violations of statutes related to oil spills, including payment of triple costs by persons who fail to follow contingency plan requirements.

The Act further specifies that vessel owners, not car go owners, are liable for spills and raises the liability limits from $150 (dollars) per gross ton to $1,200 per gross ton for vessels. The maximum liability for offshore facilities is set at $75 million plus unlimited removal costs; liability for onshore facilities or a deepwater port is set at $350 million. Willful misconduct, violation of any Federal operating or safety standa rd, failure to report an incident, or refusal to participate in a cleanup subjects the spiller to unlimited liability under provisions of the Act.

Pursuant to the Act, double hulls are required on all newly constructed ta nkers. Double hulls or double containment systems are required on all tank vessels less than 5,000 gross tons (i.e., barges). Since 1995, existing single-hull tankers are being phased out based on size and age.

An Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research was established by the provisions of the Act and tasked with submitting a plan for the implementation of an oil-pollution research, development, and demonstration pr ogram to Congress. The plan was submitted to Congress in April 1992. This program addressed, in part, an identification of important oilpollution research gaps, an establishment of resear ch priorities and goals, and an estimate of the resources and timetables necessary to accomplish the identified research tasks. In 1992, the program plan was also provided to the Marine Board of the National Research Council for review and comment as required by OPA 90. Upon review, the Marine Board recommended that the plan be revised using a framework that addresses spill prevention, human factors, and field testing demonstration of developed r esponse technology. This was accomplished in April, 1997.

In October 1991, Executive Order 12777 delegated th e provisions of OPA to various departments and agencies within the U.S. Government, in cluding the USCG, USEPA, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT or DOT), and DOI. Th e Secretary was delegated Federal Water Pollution Control Act authority over offshor e facilities and associated pipelines (except deepwater ports) for all Federal and State waters . The Secretary’s functions under the Executive Order include spill prevention, Oil Spill Contin gency Plans (OSCP’s), equipment, financial responsibility certification, and civil penalties.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), au thorized under OPA and administered by the USCG, is available to pay for removal costs and damages not recovered from responsible parties. The Fund provides up to $1 billion per incident for cleanup costs and other damages. The OSLTF was originally established under Section 9509 of th e Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It was one of several similar Federal trust funds funded by va rious levies set up to provide for the costs of46 water pollution. The OPA generally consolidated the liability and compensation schemes of these prior, Federal oil-pollution laws and authorized the use of the OSLTF, which consolidated the funds supporting those regimes. Those prior la ws included the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, D eepwater Port Act, and OCSLA. On February 20, 1991, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) was commissioned to serve as fiduciary agent for the OSLTF.

The OPA 90 provides that parties responsible for offshore facilities demonstrate, establish, and maintain oil-spill financial responsibility (OSFR ) for those facilities. The OPA 90 replaced and rescinded the OCSLA OSFR requirements. Executive Order 12777 assigned the OSFR certification function to the DOI; the Secretary, in turn, delegated this function to MMS.

The minimum amount of OSFR that must be de monstrated is $35 million for covered offshore facilities (COF’s) located on the OCS and $10 m illion for COF’s located in State waters. A COF is any structure and all of its components, equipm ent, pipeline, or device (other than a vessel or other than a pipeline or deepwater port licensed under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974) used for exploring for, drilling for, or producing oil or for transporting oil fro m such facilities. The regulation provides an exemption for persons r esponsible for facilities having a potential worstcase oil spill of 1,000 barrel (bbl) or less, unless the risks posed by a facility justify a lower
threshold volume.

The Secretary of Transportation has authority fo r vessel oil-pollution financial responsibility, and the USCG regulates the oil-spill financial responsibility program for vessels. A MODU is classified as a vessel. However, a well drilled from a MODU is classified as an offshore facility
under this rule.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq .), modified by the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and Section 1006 of OPA 90, requires the promulgation of regulations for the assessment of natural res ource damages from oil spills and hazardous substances. These Acts provide for the designatio n of trustees who determine resource injuries, assess natural resource damages (including the costs of assessing damages), present claims, recover damages, and develop and implement plans for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources under the trusteeship.

The DOI was given the authority under CERCLA to develop regulations and procedures for the assessment of damages for natu ral resource injuries resulting fro m the release of a hazardous substance or oil spills (Natur al Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) Regulations). These rulemakings are all codified at 43 CFR 11. The CERCLA specified two types of procedures to be developed: type “A” procedures for simplified, standard assessments requiring minimal field observations in cases of minor spills or releases in certain environments; and type “B” sitespecific procedures for detailed assessments for individual cases.

Spill Response

MMS Spill Response Requirements and Initiatives To ensure that industry maintains e ffective oil-spill-response capabilities, MMS

• requires immediate notification for spills >1 bbl—all spills require notification to the USCG and MMS receives notification from the USCG of all spills # 1 bbl;

• conducts investigations to determine the cause of a spill;47 • assesses civil and criminal penalties, if needed;

• oversees spill source control and ab atement operations by industry;

• sets requirements and reviews and approves oil-spill response plans for offshore facilities;

• conducts unannounced drills to ensure co mpliance with oil-spill response plans;

• requires operators to ensure that thei r spill-response operating and management teams receive appropriate spill-response training;

• conducts inspections of o il-spill response equipment;

• requires industry to show financial re sponsibility to respond to possible spills;
and

• provides research leadership to impr ove the capabilities for detecting and responding to an oil spill in the marine environment.

Offshore Response and Cleanup Technology A number of cleanup techniques are available for response to an oil spill. Open-water response options include mechanical recovery, chemical di spersion, in-situ burning, or natural dispersion. Although bioremediation was at one time consider ed for use in open water, studies have shown that this technique is not an effective spill-r esponse option in open water because of the high degree of dilution of the product and the rapid move ment of oil in open water. Effective use of bioremediation requires that the products remain in contact with the oil for extended periods of
time.

Single or multiple spill-response cleanup techniques may be used in abating a spill. The cleanup technique chosen for a spill response will va ry depending upon the unique aspects of each
situation. The selected mix of countermeasu res will depend upon the shoreline and natural resources that may be impacted; the size, location, and type of oil spilled; weather; and other variables. The overall objective of on-water recove ry is to minimize the risk of impact by preventing the spread of free-floating oil. The ph ysical and chemical properties of crude oil can greatly affect the effectiveness of containment a nd recovery equipment, dispersant application,
and in-situ burning. It is expected that oil found in the proposed lease sale areas could range from medium-weight oil to condensates.

Mechanical Cleanup Generally, mechanical containment and recovery is the primary oil-spill-response method used (33 CFR 153.305(a)). Mechanical recovery is the process of using booms and skimmers to pick up oil from the water surface. In a typical offshore oil-spill scenario, a boom is deployed in a V, J, or U configuration to gather and concentrate oil on the surface of the water. The oil is gathered in the wide end of the boom (front) and travels b ackward toward the narrow apex of the boom (back). The skimmer is positioned at the apex of the boom, where the oil is the thickest. The skimmer recovers the oil by suckin g in the top layer via a weir skimmer, or the oil adheres to and is removed from a moving surface (i.e., an oleophy lic skimmer). The oil is then pumped from the skimmer to temporary storage on an attendant vessel or barge, the latter of which serves as the skimming platform. When this on-board storage is full, the oil must be pumped into a larger storage vessel.

Mechanical oil-spill-response equipment that is c ontractually available to the operators through Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSR O) membership or contracts w ould be called out to respond to an offshore spill in the propo sed lease sale areas. Each individu al operator’s response to a spill48 would differ according to the location of the spill, the volume and source of the spill, the OSRO under contract, etc. At this time, in the Gulf of Mexico, there are three major OSRO’s that can respond to spills in the open ocean: (1) Clean Gulf Associates, (2) Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC), and (3) National Response Corporation. The equipment owned by these OSRO’s is strategically located near the busie r port areas throughout the Gulf to service the oil and gas exploration and production operators and, in some cases, the marine transportation industry. Numerous smaller OSRO’s that stockp ile additional shoreline and nearshore response equipment are also located thro ughout the Gulf coastal area.

It is expected that the oil-spill-response equipm ent needed to respond to an offshore spill in the proposed lease sale areas could be called out from one or more of the following oil-spill equipment base locations: Corpus Christi, Aransas Pass, Houston, La Porte, Ingleside, Port Arthur, and Galveston, Texas; Lake Charles, New Iberia, Belle Chase, Cameron, Cocodrie, Morgan City, New Orleans, Sulp hur, Houma, Fourchon, Fort Jackson, and Venice, Louisiana; Pascagoula, Mississippi; Theodore and Mobile, Alab ama; or Pensacola, Ft. Lauderdale, Panama City, and Tampa, Florida. Response times for an y of this equipment would vary, dependent on the location of the equipment, the staging area, and the spill site; and on the transport requirements for the type of equipment procured.

It is assumed that 10-30 percent of an oil spill in an offshore environment can be mechanically removed from the water prior to the spill maki ng landfall (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1990).

Should an oil spill occur during a storm, spill response from shore would occur following the storm. Spill response would not be possible while storm conditions continued, given the sea state limitations for skimming vessels and containment boom deployment. However, oil released onto the ocean surface during a storm event would be subject to accelerated rates of weathering and dissolution (i.e., oil and water would be agitated, forcing oil into smaller droplets and facilitating dissolution of the high end aromatic compounds present).

Dispersants When dispersants are applied to spilled crude oil, the surface tension of the oil is reduced. This
allows normal wind and wave action to break the o il into tiny droplets, which are dispersed into the upper portion of the water column. Natura l processes then break down these droplets much quicker than they would if the oil were allowed to remain on the water surface.

Dispersant use must be in accordance with the Regional Response Teams’ Preapproved Dispersant Use Manual and any conditions outlin ed within a Regional Response Team sitespecific dispersant approval given after a spill even t. Consequently, dispersant use would be in
accordance with the restrictions for specific water depths, distances from shore, or monitoring requirements. For a deepwater >1,000 ft water depth) spill ∃ 1,000 bbl, dispersant application may be a preferred response in the open water environm ent to prevent oil from reaching a coastal area, in addition to mechanical response.

Based on the present location of dispersant stockpil es and dispersant application equipment in the GOM, it is expected that the dispersant applica tion aircraft initially called out for an oil-spill response to an offshore spill in the proposed lease sale area will come from Houma, Louisiana; Stennis, Mississippi; or Coolidge, Arizona. The di spersants will come from locations primarily in Texas and Louisiana. Response times for this e quipment would vary, depending on the spill site and on the transport time for additional supplies of dispersants to arrive at a staging location. Based on historic information, this EIS assumes that dispersant application will be effective on 20-50 percent (S.L. Ross Environmental Research Ltd., 2000) of the treated oil.

Should an oil spill occur during a storm, dispersant application would occur following the storm. Aerial and vessel dispersant application would not be possible while storm conditions continued.49 However, oil released onto the ocean surface during a storm event would be subject to accelerated rates of weathering and dissolution (i.e., oil and wa ter would be agitated, fo rcing oil into smaller droplets and facilitating dissolution of th e high-end aromatic compounds present).

In-situ Burning

In-situ burning is an oil-spill cleanup technique that involves the controlled burning of the oil at or near a spill site. The use of this spill-r esponse technique can provide the potential for the removal of large amounts of oil over an extens ive area in less time than other techniques. In-situ burning involves the same oil collection process u sed in mechanical recovery, except instead of going into a skimmer, the oil is funneled into a fire-boom, a specialized boom that has been constructed to withstand the high temperatures from burning oil. Fire resistant booms are used to isolate the oil from the source of the slick. The oil in the fire-boom is then ignited and allowed to
burn. While in-situ burning is another method for disposing of oil that has been collected in a boom, this method is typically more effective than skimmers when the oil is highly concentrated.

For oil to ignite on water, it must be at least 2-3 mm thick. Most oils must be contained with fireproof boom to maintain this thickness. Oils bur n at a rate of 3-4 mm per minute. Most oils will burn, although emulsions may require treatment befo re they will burn. Water in the oil will affect the burn rate; however, recent research has indicat ed that this effect will be marginal. One approximately 200—m length of fi re resistant boom can contain up to 355 bbl (11,000 gallons) of oil, which takes about 45 minutes to burn. In total, it would take about three hours to collect this amount of oil, tow it away from a slick, and burn it (Fingas, 2001). Response times for bringing a
fire-resistant boom onsite would va ry, dependent on the location of the equipment, the staging area, and the spill site.

Should an oil spill occur during a storm, in-situ burning would occur following the storm. In-situ burning would not be possible wh ile storm conditions continued.

Natural Dispersion In some instances, the best response to a spill may be to allow the natural dispersion of a slick to occur. Natural dispersion may be a preferred option for smaller spills of lighter nonpersistent oils
and condensates that form slicks that are too th in to be removed by conve ntional methods and are expected to dissipate rapidly, particularly if there are no identified potential impacts to offshore resources and a potential for shoreline impact is not indicated. In addition, natural dispersion may also be a preferred option in some nearshore e nvironments when the potential damage caused by a cleanup effort could cause more damage than the spill itself.

Onshore Response and Cleanup Offshore response and cleanup is preferable to shor eline cleanup; however, if an oil slick reaches the coastline it is expected th at the specific shoreline clea nup countermeasures identified and prioritized in the appropriate Area Contingency Pl ans (ACP’s) for various habitat types would be used. The sensitivity of the contaminated shor eline is the most important factor in the development of cleanup recommendations. Shor elines of low productivity and biomass can withstand more intrusive cleanup methods such as pressure washing. Shorelines of high productivity and biomass are very sensitive to intrusive cleanup methods, and in many cases, the cleanup is more damaging than allowing natural recovery.

Oil-spill response planning in the United St ates is accomplished through a mandated set of interrelated plans. The ACP represents the thir d tier of the National Response Planning System and was mandated by OPA 90. The ACP’s cover subregional geographic areas. The ACP’s are a focal point of response planning, providing detailed information on response procedures, priorities, and appropriate countermeasures. The Gulf coastal area that falls within USCG District 8 is covered by the One Gulf Plan ACP, whic h includes separate Geographic Response Plans for areas covered by USCG Sector Corpus Christi, Sector Houston/Galveston, Sector Port Arthur, Sector Morgan City, Sector New Orleans, a nd Sector Mobile. The Miami ACP covers the remaining Gulf coastal area. The ACP’s are written and maintained by Area Committees50 assembled from Federal, State, and local governme ntal agencies that have pollution response authority; nongovernmental participants may atte nd meetings and provide input. The coastal Area Committees are chaired by respective Federal On-Scene Coordinators from the appropriate USCG Office and are comprised of members fro m local or area-specific jurisdictions. Response procedures identified within an ACP or its Geogr aphic Response Plan(s) reflect the priorities and procedures agreed to by members of the Area Committees.

The single most frequently recommended spill-re sponse strategy for the areas identified for protection in all of the applicable ACP’s or it’s Geographic Response Plans is the use of a shoreline boom to deflect oil away from coastal resources such as seagrass beds, marinas, resting areas for migratory birds, bird and turtle nesting ar eas, etc. If a shoreline is oiled, the selection of the type of shoreline remediation to be used will depend on the following: (1) the type and amount of oil on the shore; (2) the nature of the a ffected coastline; (3) the depth of oil penetration into the sediments; (4) the accessib ility and the ability of vehicles to travel along the shoreline; (5) the possible ecological damage of the treatme nt to the shoreline environment; (6) weather conditions; (7) the current state of the o il; and (8) jurisdictional considerations.

Shoreline Cleanup Countermeasures The following assumptions regarding the cleanup of spills that contact coastal resources in the area of consideration reflect a generalization of the site-specific guidance provided in the ACP’s or its Geographic Response Plans app licable to the GOM. As stated in Chapter 4.3.1.4 , for this analysis it is expected that typical oil spilled as a result of an accident associated with a proposed action would be within the range of 30-35 degrees API. Since the following discussion is intended to address the most likely spill scenario discussed in Chapter 4.3.5.3 , cleanup countermeasures for a medium-weight oil are all th at are included in the following discussion. The ACP’s applicable to the Gulf coastal area c over a vast geographical ar ea. The differences in the response priorities and procedures among the various ACP’s or its Geographic Response
Plans reflect the differences in the identified r esources needing spill protection in the area covered by each ACP or its Geographic Response Plans:

• Barrier Island/Fine Sand Beaches Cleanup : After the oiling of a barrier
island/fine sand beach with a medium-wei ght oil, applicable cleanup options are manual removal, trenching (recovery we lls), sediment removal, cold-water deluge flooding, shore removal/replacem ent, and warm-water washing. Other possible shoreline countermeasures include low-pressure cold-water washing, burning, and nutrient enhancement. R esponders are requested to avoid thefollowing countermeasures: no action; passive collection (sorbents); highpressure, cold-water washing; hot-water washing; slurry sand blasting; vacuum; and vegetation cutting.

• Fresh or Salt Marsh Cleanup : In all cases, cleanup options that avoid causing additional damage to the marshes will be selected. After the oiling of a fresh or salt marsh with a medium-weight oil, th e preferred cleanup option would be to take no action. Another applicable alte rnative would be trenching (recovery wells). Shore removal/replacement, vege tation cutting, or nutrient enhancement could be used. The option of using vegetation cutting as a shoreline countermeasure will depend upon the time of the year and will be considered generally only if re-oiling of birds is possible. Chemical treatment, burning, and
bacterial addition as countermeasures ar e under consideration. Responders are advised to avoid manual removal, passive collection, debris removal/heavyequipment, sediment removal, cold-water flooding, high- or low-pressure coldwater washing, warm-water washing, hot-water washing, slurry sand blasting, and shore removal/replacement.51 • Coarse Sand/Gravel Beaches Cleanup: After the oiling of a coarse sand/gravel beach with a medium-weight oil applicab le cleanup options are manual removal, trenching (recovery wells), sediment rem oval, cold-water deluge flooding, and shore removal/ replacement. Other possi ble shoreline countermeasures include low-pressure, coldwater washing; burning; warm-water washing; and nutrient enhancement. Responders are requested to avoid the following countermeasures: no action; passive collection (sorbents); high-pressure, cold-water washing; hotwater washing; slurry sand blasti ng; vacuum; and vegetation cutting.

• Exposed or Sheltered Tidal Flats Cleanup: After the oiling of an exposed or sheltered tidal flat with a medium-weight oil, the preferred cleanup option is no action. Other applicable shoreline coun termeasures for this resource include trenching (recovery wells) and cold-water deluge flooding. Other possible
shoreline countermeasures listed include low-pressure, cold-water washing; vacuum; vegetation cutting; and nutrient enhancement. Responders are requested to avoid manual removal; passive collec tion; debris removal/heavy equipment; sediment removal; high-pressure, cold-waterwashing; warm-water washing; hotwater washing; slurry sand blasting; and shore removal replacement.

• Seawall/Pier Cleanup: After the oiling of a seawall or pier with a mediumweight oil, the applicable cleanup opti ons include manual removal; cold-waterflooding; low- and high-pressure, cold-water washing; warm-water washing; hotwater washing; slurry sand blasting; vacuum; and shore removal replacement. Other possible shoreline countermeasur es listed include burning and nutrient enhancement. Responders are requested to avoid no action, passive collection (sorbents), trenching, sediment removal, and vegetation cutting.

Mitigation in Response to USFW S Conservation Recommendations

The following mitigating measures were recommended by FWS in their Central Planning Area (CPA) and Western Planning Area (WPA) Biological Opinion and have been adhered to by

MMS:

Oil Spill and Other Hazardous Emergency Contingency Plans

─ I n order to reduce impacts on threatened and endangered species, MMS will c ontinue to require the petroleum industry to prepare adequate hazardous spill contingency plan s for all activities. This will include the strategic placement of appropriate spill cleanup equipment, personnel training in non-intrusive cleanup techniques, and demonstration of response commitment, capabilities, and implementation. The response plans will include, but are not limited to, identification of the identified species' habitat (including designated critical habitat), oil-spill trajectory modeling to ascertain the time for oil to reach the habitats, implementation plans for protection of the species and their habitats in case of an oil spill, cleanup methods, and State and Federal resource manager contacts. Several of the mitigation measures liste d above have been put into place since the 2002 USFWS Biological Opinion. Consideration of th reatened and endangered species is a stated requirement. Also, the Final Rule on Protection of Marine Mammals and Threatened and Endangered Species, issued on April 16, 2007, requi res Federal oil and gas lessees in the OCS to provide information on how their activities will c onform to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The Protected Species Lease Stipulation

states: The MMS will require oil spill contingency planning to identify important habitats, including designated critical hab itat, used by listed species (e.g. sea turtle nesting beaches, piping plover critical habitat), and require the strategic52 placement of spill cleanup equipment to be used only by personnel trained in less-intrusive cleanup techniques on beach and bay shores.

The MMS will ensure that oil spill contingency plan s are prepared to meet the requirements of the agency, identify specific locations on nesting beaches utilized by sea turtles, and include provisions for removal of sea turtle eggs from beach es that are imminently expected to receive spilled oil. The eggs should be relocated and incubated and the hatchlings released in an uncontaminated area. The plan should also name qualified and permitted re habilitators to handle

oiled and/or stranded sea turtles.

Further, MMS will coordinate annually with the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG) to assure that the spill contingency and response plans contain curre nt and up-to-date sensitive areas information regarding the Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtle, piping plover, bald eagle, and brown pelican. An updated MOU with the USCG was si gned in May 2007 to continue and improve coordination of industry activities and rapid response should a spill occur.

Aircraft Impacts

─ To minimize impacts to endangered and threatened species, MMS advises the lessees' aircraft operators to adhe re to the altitude restrictions over National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and park s (including national seashores). Federal Aviation Administration requirements, as well as corporate helicopter guidelines, give minimum altitudes for aircraft flying over sensitive areas.

Marine Debris and Trash

─ The MMS will continue to enforce their regulations regarding marine debris disposal from o ffshore oil and gas operations (NTL 86-11) and promulgated regulations (30 Code of Fe deral Regulations (CFR) 250.40). These regulations are to assure that lessees do not create conditions that will pose an unreasonable risk to public health, life, prope rty, aquatic life, wildlife, recreation, navigation, commercial fishing, or other u ses of the ocean during offshore oil and gas operations.

MMS issued the Marine Debris Awareness and Elimination NTL in 2003. This NTL requires annual marine debris awareness trai ning for all offshore personnel. Placards that bring attention to marine debris, and th e unintentional contribution to debris from accidental loss, are required to be posted on vessels and structures.

Species Studies

─ The MMS contributed funding to the Piping Plover Conference held in Georgia in 2005. Those Proceedings are not yet available. The hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 altered habitat, particularly the sea tur tle nesting areas of the Chandeleur Islands. MMS will consider funding requests for studies to assess the status and impacts on sea turtles and Gulf sturgeon.

Findings of Affect

The analyses of the potential impacts are based on a scenario for a typical proposed action. These scenarios provide assumptions and estimates on the amounts, locations, and timing for OCS exploration, development, and production operations and faciliti es, both offshore and onshore and on oil spills and other accidental events. The mitigating measures are considered part of a proposed action for analysis purposes. There are th ree possible Findings of Affects: No Effect; May Affect – is Not Likely to Adversely Affect; a nd May Affect – is Likely to Adversely Affect.53 A determination of No Effect means there are ab solutely no effects of the project, either positive or negative. A determination of May Affect – is Not Likely to Adversely Affect means that all effects are beneficial, insignificant, or discountab le. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the speci es or habitat. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. A determination of May Affect – is Likely to A dversely Affect means that all effects cannot be

avoided.

Sea Turtles Five sea turtles were analyzed for potenti al effects in the EIS: loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), green ( Chelonia mydas ), leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), Kemp’s ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ). The hawksbill sea turtle is not known to nest on GOM beaches in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alab ama and only rarely nests on the GOM coast of Florida; in 1999, one nest was confirmed in Texas. Thus, because of low nesting numbers and the low probability of an oil spill occurring when hawksbill sea turtles and their nest would be present, the Finding of Affect for a proposed ac tion on hawksbills is Not Likely to Adversely

Affect.

Potential sources of impacts to nesting and ha tchling sea turtles from a proposed action include OCS related offshore and coastal oil spills, coastal and onshore spill-response activities, and trash

and debris from OCS offshore activities. Trash and debris contribute to the degradation of nesting habitat and could entangle a hatchling emerging from the nest and crawling to the sea.

Loggerhead nesting and hatchling emergence occur at night; therefore, disturbance from aircraft

and/or boat vessel traffic would be minimal b ecause traffic activity during this time period is minimal to negligible. Since Kemp’s ridley nesting and hatchling emergence occur during daylight hours, it is not known how this would affect nesting Kemp’s ridley sea turtles; however, minimal disturbance would be expected. Air em issions are not expected to be a concern for nesting adult sea turtles because of the limited time spent on the beach; however, impacts to developing embryos and hatchlings in the nest are unknown. Offshore pipeline installation is not expected to impact nesting sea turtles. Onshor e beach installation could have an impact if onshore pipeline installation on sea turtle nes ting beaches is conducted during the nesting season from May 1 through October 31; however, if a new onshore pipeline is needed, an environmental impact analysis is required before approval . Where pipeline landfall occurs, the permitting process encourages construction outside the nesti ng season and the use of directional boring to greatly reduce and potentially eliminate impacts to barrier beaches.

Oil spills impacting the nesting beaches of sea tur tles are of concern and would have a significant impact, depending upon the amount of weathering the oil has undergone, the height of deposition on the beach, and the stage of nesting. Effects of petroleum on the development and survival of marine turtle embryos are variable. Impacts would be different if the oil impacts the beach before nesting, during nest preparation, or during incu bation and migration of hatchlings to the sea. Study results indicate that oil remaining on the beach approximately one year after a spill did not cause significant mortality in sea turtle eggs; however, fresh crude oil deposited on sand above a nest can cause extensive mortality to incubating sea turtle eggs (Fritts and McGehee, 1982). Fritz and McGehee (1982) noted that sea turtle eggs were damaged by contact with weathered oil

released from the 1979 Ixtoc spill which oiled the Rancho Nue vo beaches in Mexico. In 1994, when beaches on St. Vincent NWR in the Florida pa nhandle became fouled with tar, female sea turtles crawled through the tar to lay nests, transf erring the tar to the nest. However, no tar was found on the eggs in the nest. It has been proposed that olfactory clues are imprinted on54 hatchlings and guide them back to their natal beach for nesting when they reach maturity. Oil on the beach could interfere with these chemical gui des (Lutz et al., 1985; Ogren, 1990; Possardt, 1990).

Oil collecting at beaches through which nesting adults or retreating hatchlings must pass can also affect the survivability of turtles in several ways . Damage can occur by toxic ingestion, with blockage of the digestive tract or internal and external inflammatory responses including infection and poisoning. Most impacts are believed to be s ublethal, but little is known about the impacts of chronically ingested oil accumulating in organs. Studies have indicated that sea turtles do not seem to avoid oil slicks and may ingest or become fouled with the oil. There is concern that longterm chronic impacts would affect the survivability of turtles, both young and old. More

definitive information is needed to assess the impacts of oiling on sea turtle nesting beaches.

As delineated in OSRA, sea turtles’ nesting, mati ng, and general habitat extends to most of the Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida coasts (Ji et al., 2002). According to OSRA, the highest estimated probability of an oil spill > 1,000 bbl occurring and contacting sea turtle nesting habitats within 10 days is 3-4 percent (Ji et al., 2007) ( Figure 4-20 ). Most GOM nesting habitat has an estimated probability of occurrence and contact of an oil spill > 1,000 bbl within 30 days of 1 percent or less. This represents a minimal th reat to nesting adults or hatchling loggerhead, green, leatherback, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtl es. In addition, MMS, USEPA, and USCG have regulations, requirements, and recommendations th at are expected to prevent or reduce the likelihood of a spill occurring, and, if a spill occurs , prevent or reduce impacts to sea turtles. This and the weathering of oil in the environment ar e expected to significantly minimize potential impacts on sea turtles and their nesting habitat.

The Finding of Affect for a proposed action on Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles is Not Likely to Adversely Affect. Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key Beach Mice The proposed actions are not expected to have an impact on the Alabama (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates), Choctawhatchee (Peromyscus poliono tus allophyrus), St. Andrew (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularius) and Perdido Key (Per omyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) beach mice because of the location of the proposed activities (100 mi offshore); the location of the primary and secondary onshore service bases (in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) are away from critical habitat; the low probability of an oil spill > 1,000 bbl occurring and contacting their habitats within 10 days (<0.5%) ( Figure 4-21 ); and the low probability of the species ingesting

marine trash and debris.

The Finding of Affect for a proposed action on the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, and Perdido Key beach mice Not Likely to Adversely Affect; in addition, a proposed action is Not Likely to Adversely Modify Designated Critical Habitat for the Alabama, Choctawhatchee, and Perdido Key beach mice.

Birds Four endangered or threatened birds were analyzed for potential effects in the EIS: piping plover, bald eagle, brown pelican, and whooping crane. Potential impact-producing factors for endangered or threatened birds include OCS-rela ted helicopter and service-vessel traffic, air emissions, habitat degradation, trash and debris from service-vessels and OCS structures, oil spills, and spill-response activities.

Piping Plover55 Potential impacts of particular concern regarding the piping plover ( Charadrius melodus ) would be from disturbance to its wintering habitat resulting from development of onshore facilities, aircraft and boat vessel traffic, and trash and debris (USDOI, FWS, 1989). Based on the National Park Service’s (NPS) marine debris study, it is al so anticipated that impacts to wintering piping plovers from ingestion of, contact with, or enta nglement in trash and debris would remain the same or decrease as a result of a proposed action.

Low-altitude aircraft overflights related to OCS o il and gas operations could affect the wintering piping plover by temporary displacement. Birds startled by aircraft may leave and cease using their preferred feeding areas and possibly seek less-desirable ones. Rodgers and Smith (1997) found that shorebirds had the shortest flushing distances when disturbed by human activities (walking, all-terrain and other vehicles, and boats). Thus, piping plovers may be more susceptible to disturbance during foraging and loafing periods, resulting in increased energy expenditure via flight and alertness, and reduced energy intake via lower feeding rates. A minimum buffer of 100 m (328 ft) to minimize disturbance from walking, all-terrain vehicles, automobiles, and boats has been r ecommended (Rodgers and Smith, 1997).

The FWS, FAA, NPS, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management have an Interagency Agreement to reduce low-level flights over natural resource areas. The recommended minimum flight altitude is 2,000 ft above ground level. This lim itation is included on aeronautical sectional maps. The FAA also encourages pilots to maintain higher-than-minimum altitudes over noise-sensitive areas. The MMS’s GOM OCS Region Office reminds lessees and operators that all aircraft, when used in support of their OCS oil and gas ope rations, must maintain altitudes of 2,000 ft or more when flying over all lands located within NW R’s, national parks, and seashores. If aircraft operators abide by the information provide d on aeronautical maps and MMS’s recommended altitude over natural resource areas, impacts to piping plovers are expected to be minimal.

Another potential source of impacts to the piping pl over would be the fouling of wintering habitat from oil spills. The piping plover may be among th e more vulnerable species because they forage in intertidal areas. Ingestion of oil could o ccur during the feeding process. Some oiling may occur through direct contact with oiled sedime nts or waves in the splash zone. The OSRA indicates that there is a 7-11 percent and a 16-26 percent probability piping plover wintering habitats in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida would be impacted by an oil spill

> 1,000 bbl within 10 days from a WPA and CPA proposed action, respectively ( Figure 4-22 ). It should be noted that the increase in probability since the 2002 OSRA models is not due to an increase in oil spills, but rather based on the exp ected increase in production. The amount of oil spilled has decreased. Oil spill prevention and res ponse technology and mitig ations have greatly improved and are expected to minimize the number of oil spills and the impact of spilled oil.

The Finding of Affect for a proposed action on the wintering piping plover is Not Likely to Adversely Affect. In addition, a proposed action is Not Likely to Adversely Modify Designated Critical Habitat for the wintering piping plover.

Bald Eagle Potential impacts of particular concern regarding the bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus )
would be from OCS-related offshore, coastal, a nd inshore oil spills; OCS-related coastal and inshore spill-response activities, and disturbance from coastal and inshore transportation service operations. Most offshore activities are not a concer n with respect to bald eagles since the birds do not forage that far offshore.56 Disturbance from helicopter or service-vessel traffic could sporadically disturb feeding, resting, or nesting bald eagles or cause abandonment of suitable habitats. Adherence of flight altitude restrictions by helicopter pilots and implementa tion of safe navigation practices by service-vessel captains is expected to significantly minimize the potential impacts to bald eagles from noise or

collisions. Strict adherence to and enforcement of regulations regarding tr ash and debris disposal is also expected to minimize potential effects on bald eagles.

Potential impacts to the eagle from an oil spill would be through direct contact of oil or contamination of its food source. It can be exp ected that bald eagles would be attracted to the area of a spill by dead and dying fish and birds to feed and thereby consume oil adhering to prey species or get oil on their feathers. Depending on the time of year, a decrease in the number of bald eagles at some or all life stages, could o ccur as a result of a spill. For offshore spills in deeper waters, with projected spill response, clea nup efforts, and natural weathering, most of the spill is expected to be recovered at the facility or before it reaches areas along the coast where the birds nest or feed. Spills in inshore waters are expected to originate near shore-base locations and are expected to affect a localized area but s hould be at a distance from bald eagle nests and foraging areas to not be a concern

According to OSRA, there is a 1- 2 and an 18 - 29 percent chance of an oil spill > 1,000 bbl occurring and contacting bald eagle co astal habitats within 10 days (F igure 4-25 ). If a spill were to occur, spill response, cleanup efforts, and na tural weathering would result in most of a spill being recovered or dissipated. Oil-spill continge ncy plans as required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and MMS must address protection of sensitive species and habitats in the response plans. Any remaining oil or by-product is expected to aff ect a small area and dissipate rapidly. It should be noted that the increase in probability since the 2002 OSRA models is not due to an increase in oil spills, but rather based on the expected in crease in production. The amount of oil spilled has decreased. Oil spill prevention a nd response technology and mitiga tions have greatly improved and are expected to minimize the number of oil spills and the impact of spilled oil.

The Finding of Affect for a proposed action on the bald eagle is Not Likely to Adversely Affect.

Brown Pelican Potential impacts of particular concern regarding the brown pelican ( Pelicanus occidentalis ) would be from air emissions, development of onshore facilities and infrastructure, associated aircraft and boat vessel traffic, and offsho re oil- and gas-related trash and debris.

Contamination of birds by air emissions can occur in two ways: absorption, and inhalation (the most common mode is inhalation). The major effects of air pollution include direct mortality, debilitating injury, disease, physiological stress, anemia, hypocalcemic condition, bioaccumulation of air pollutants with associated decrease in resistance to debilitating factors, and population declines (Newman, 1979). Levels of sulphur oxide (mainly SO 2 ) emission from hydrocarbon combustion from OCS oil and gas activiti es is a concern in relation to birds. Due to their lack of tracheal submucosal glands, birds appear to have more tolerance for inhaled SO 2 than most mammals (Llacuna et al., 1993; Okuyama et al., 1979). Direct and indirect effects include change in population distribution, food web contamination and habitat degradation, and synergistic effects with other natural and manm ade stresses. Offshore operators are currently required by MMS to inventory their emissions. The total pollutant emissions per year are not uniform. During the early years of a proposed action, emissions would be small, increasing over time with full platform emplacements and production. After reaching a maximum during the57 development and production phase, emissions w ould decrease as all platforms and wells are

removed.

Major concerns related to helicopter and service-ve ssel traffic are intense aversion, panic, and injury or death following a bird's collision with a helicopter or vessel. Birds may also collide with ground structures after being frightened by a near miss with a helicopter or vessel. Disturbance from helicopter or service-vessel traffic could sporadically disturb feeding, resting, or nesting brown pelicans or cause abandonment of suitable habitat. Acclimation of birds to

routine vessel traffic diminishes the effect. Adhe rence by helicopter pilo ts to flight altitude restrictions and safe navigation practices by servi ce-vessel captains is expected to significantly minimize the potential impacts to brown pelicans from noise or collisions.

Marine debris is particularly da ngerous and often lethal to aqua tic wildlife. Entanglement and ingestion of trash and debris would have the greatest impact on brown pelicans. Entanglement can result in the inability of birds to feed, care for their young, or fly. Results could include maiming and death. Ingesting debris can result in blocking the digestive pathways or remaining in the digestive system as inert material. Stri ct adherence to and enforcement of regulations regarding trash and debris is expected to al so minimize potential effects on brown pelicans.

Oil spills pose the greatest potential impact to co astal and marine birds such as brown pelican. Brown pelicans are active swimmers and plunge di ve for prey. They are susceptible to both physical oiling and secondary effects via ingesti on of oiled prey. If physical oiling of birds occurs, some degree of both acute and chronic physiological stress associated with direct and secondary uptake of oil would be expected. Ing estion of oils might reduce the function of the immune system and, thus, reduce resistance to infectious diseases (Leighton, 1990). Low levels of oil could stress birds by interfering with food detection, feeding impulses, predator avoidance, territory definition, susceptibilit y to physiological disorders, disease resistance, growth rates, reproduction, and respiration

The probability of an oil spill occurring from a proposed action and contacting brown pelican habitat within 10 days is 8–13 and 10-16 percent for the WPA and the CPA, respectively ( Figure

4-24 ). The contact probabilities are considered conservative because they do not account for naturally occurring events such as weathering a nd activities included in a proposed action (e.g., clean up, containment, etc.). Thus, with projected spill response, cleanup efforts, and natural weathering, most of a spill would be recovered at the facility or before the oil reaches areas along

the coast where the birds nest or feed. It should be noted that the increase in probability since the

2002 OSRA models is not due to an increase in oil spills, but rather based on the expected increase in production. The amount of oil spilled has decreased. Oil spill prevention and response technology and mitigations have greatly improved and are expected to minimize the number of oil spills and the impact of spilled oil.

The Finding of Affect for a proposed action on the brown pelican is Not Likely to Adversely

Affect.

Whooping Crane Potential impacts to the whooping crane ( Grus americana ) from proposed oil and gas activities are disturbance to its wintering habitats resulti ng from vessel and aircraft traffic, and trash and debris. Adherence by helicopter pilots to flight altitude restrictions and safe navigation practices by service-vessel captains is expected to significantly minimize the potential impacts from aircraft or vessel disturbance. The location of whooping crane wintering grounds on a protected58 wildlife refuge should offer further protection from disturbance. The MMS has issued NTL guidelines for handling of debris and for the elim ination of accidental and unintentional release of

trash or debris. Strict adherence to and enforc ement of regulations from MMS and other agencies regarding trash and debris is expected to also minimize potential effects on whooping cranes.

Oiled waters in whooping crane ha bitats could pose a considerable threat if an oil spill occurred when whooping cranes are on their wintering grounds in Texas (November to late April). Whooping cranes could be affected by ingestion of oil during feeding or by contact with oil in

sediments or water.

There is a <0.5 and 1 percent probability that an oil spill >1000 bbls would occur and contact whooping crane habitat within 10 days in the WPA and CPA, respectively ( Figure 4-23 ). Though the wintering habitat is somewhat protected from oil spills by barrier islands, the loss of even a relatively small portion of the Texas population coul d be very significant. Oil spill prevention and mitigation regulations and guidelines by MM S and other agencies, and new technologies developed by industry to prevent oil spills and reduce spill impact, should minimize potential impacts on whooping cranes.

The Finding of Affect for a proposed action on the whooping crane is Not Likely to Adversely

Affect.

Biological Assessment Conclusion

The relevant federally protected species considered in this BA and the Finding of Affect for each

are as follows:

Birds The brown pelican, listed as endangered in Texas, Lo uisiana, and Mississippi, is Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by a proposed action. The bald eagle, listed as threatened in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, is Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by a proposed action. The piping plover, listed as threatened with critical habitat in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, is Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by a proposed action. The Whooping Crane, listed as endangered with critical habitat in Texas, is Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by a proposed action.

Sea Turtles

The loggerhead sea turtle, listed as threatened in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, is Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by a proposed action. The Kemp’s ridley, listed as endangered in Texas, is Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by a proposed action.

Beach Mice The Alabama beach mouse, listed as endangered with critical habitat in Alabama, is Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by a proposed action. The Perdido beach mouse, listed as endangered with critical habitat in Alabama, is Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by a proposed action.

As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of ESA Section 7 Consultation by MMS with FWS would occur if (1) new information reveals eff ects of a proposed action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (2) a proposed action is subsequently modified in a manne r that causes an effect to the listed species or59 critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.

## ADDENDUM

Biological Assessment

USFWS Consultation



## Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas
Lease Sales: 2007-2012Coastal Spills

In response to a request by the USFWS, this addendum to the Biological Assessment addresses coastal oil spill issues including physical characteristics, mitigation, regulation, and biological impacts. The greatest potential for an oil spill accident as a result of a proposed action occurs in offshore waters, usua lly at the site of i ndustry development and production. MMS has published extensive da ta on the expected occurrence and the possible impacts of an offshore oil spill on a range of habitats, from oceanic waters to coastal beaches. However, the potential also ex ists for a spill to originate in the coastal waters as a result of a proposed action. Pipelin e spills and barge spills are that two most likely sources of OCS-related spills th at would occur in the coastal waters.

In a recent review of spills across the nation, the USCG notes that most spills and spill

volumes occurred in the Gulf of Mexico coas tal waters (USCG, 2007). All types of crude oil and petroleum products cross the coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Crude oil from the OCS is transported primarily by pipeline to shorebases and on to refineries. Imported foreign oil is transported by pipeline, ba rge and tanker. Bulk volumes of refined petroleum products which are also counted as oi l spills are distributed for storage and sale along the Gulf coast, and lastly, fuel oils are lost from all sorts of vessels during

consumer use.

Coastal oil spills are of particular interest because of the presence of communities of

coastal threatened and enda ngered species that could be impacted. The window of opportunity for response and naturally-occurri ng weathering is shorter than for offshore spills.

Oil spills will occur in coastal waters as the result of the propos ed action. The USCG maintains records of spills in coastal waters and State offshore waters, but the database does not identify whether the cause or source of the spill is related to OCS activities or not. In some cases, such as a pipeline th at is carrying both St ate and OCS production from a shore base to a refinery, it is impo ssible to isolate the OCS spill. In the EIS process, MMS has used USCG records to quant ify coastal spills likely to be the result of OCS activities by assuming that the proportion of spills is equivalent to the proportion of OCS oil. Since OCS oil is 19 percent of the total crude oil delivered to the Gulf coast states, 19 percent of the sp ills from OCS-type sources (MODUs, pipelines, etc) were assumed to be caused by OCS-related activity.

Weathering The volume of oil spilled will be reduced by weathering. Weathering is dependent upon many factors, including water and air temperat ure, wind speed and th e characteristics of the oil. The more rapidly the slick is transpor ted to the shoreline, the less time is available for weathering.

The spilled oil will spread out on the water surface, volatile components in the spill will evaporate to the atmosphere, water-soluble co mponents will dissolve in water, and some droplets will physically disperse in the water colu mn. The greatest volume of evaporationwill occur within the first hours of the spill. The percent evap orative loss for a medium to light oil is 40 – 75 percent over several days (NRC, 2003). Transfer of VOCs to air would decrease exposure to aquatic organisms but re sult in an additional exposure pathway for coastal birds and turtles. Other less signi ficant forms of weathering include emulsion formation, photo oxidation, biodegr adation and sedimentation.

Oil Spill Projections MMS discusses and project s coastal spills in the EIS: Section 4.1.2.4.4.6 and 4.1.3.4.4.7 (pg 4-76 – 4-77), Section 4.3.1.3.2 ((pg 4-230), Table 4-13, Table 4-36, Table 4-37 and

Table 4-38.

An important point about Table 4-13 is that, if one considers it to contain 8 quadrants, 7 of the 8 are a simple reporting of historical spill counts. All the pr ojected coastal spills

were determined from historic counts where the assumed size was obtained from

Anderson and Labelle for the ≥ 1,000 bbl spills and by averag ing the USCG dataset for

<1000 bbl.

In contrast, the estimate of OCS offshore spills > 1,000 bbl is obtained from detailed study of spills per BBO piped and sophisticat ed probabilistic analys is of factors by the

MMS Resource Evaluation section.

Source of data used in Table 4-13

OCS source <1000 bbl ≥ 1,000 bbl

Off-shore USCG

historical data

1996 – 2001 Anderson and LaBelle (2000) spill rates and

EIS resource projections

Coastal USCG

historical data

1996-2001 USCG historical data

1986 – 2001

Non-OCS source

Off-shore USCG

historical data

1996-2001 USCG historical data

1986 – 2001

Coastal USCG

historical data

1996-2001 USCG historical data

1986 – 2001

• A recurring problem is that since the largest spills have occurred so rarely in recent history the projected number for the > 1,000 bbl spills comes out to be less than one . MMS wants to communicate that a spill greater than 1000 bbl is rare but possible and so the number s are massaged so that the largest spill volume is retained a nd considered in the discussion as a possible future event.• For OCS-related coastal spills <1000 bbl: There were an average of 42 spills per year (1996-2001); eighty-five percentwere from an unknown source but were counted as OCSrelated

.

• For OCS-related coastal spills ≥ 1000 bbl: In the USCG database, four spills ≥ 1000 bbl from OCS and non-OCS

activities occurred in coastal wate rs during the 16 year period,

1986 – 2001. One spill per six years was used in the table to show that a spill is possible

.

Table 4-36 and 4-37 provide a mass balance of spilled oil for in winter and summer. For coastal impacts, the column “Estimated Length of Shoreline C ontact” is the most important column. In coastal waters, there would be less time elapsed for the slick to weather. Use of dispersants may not be permitted and there would be less time for mobilization for mechanical clean up. Therefore assuming dispersants were approved, a very rough estimate of the amount of shorel ine contacted from a 4,600 bbl spill over a 12-hour interval would be 50 km, the highest value in the two tables. However, additional modeling should be performed since this ta ble was not directly designed to estimate

shoreline contact.

Table 4-38 provides the estimated number and assumed size of spills that could happen in

coastal waters from an accident related to activities supporting the proposed action. Data from the year 2001 were used because it was th e year with the most complete data. In 2001, roughly 3 BBO arrived on the Gulf coast from state waters (<1 percent), OCS waters (19 percent) and foreign imports ( 81 percent). In 2001 there were a total of 270 coastal spills of which 218 could have been from an OCS source. Included OCS sources were fixed platform, MODU, offshore marine facility, OSV, offshore pipeline, tank barge, tank ship, and unknown source. Twenty -two sources were not considered OCS sources. The elimination of categories such as recreational vessel or fishing vessel is straightforward but exclusion of other sources such as shoreline pipeline or unclassified vessel may be debated, and may be included in future analysis.

A coastal spill rate of 74 spills per BBO was determined. Using the volume of oil projected for the CPA and WPA Multisale (Table 4-1), the total number of spills was determined. Spills were sorted into size cat egory according to the distribution in the historical records. As mentioned previously, to avoid showing zero spills in the larger size categories, MMS did insert a value of one or more spills into Table 4-38 as needed.

Coastal Spill Jurisdiction and Contingenc y Planning for Mitigation and Response

Role/Responsibility/JurisdictionThe responsibilities delegate d to MMS under the executive order for OPA 90, are closely related to spill prevention and spill res ponse planning. These MMS responsibilities include spill prevention, revi ew and approval of oil-spil l response plans (OSRP’s), inspection of oil-spill containment and cleanup equipment, and ensuring oil-spill financial responsibility. MMS re sponsibilities also include en suring that the operator of a facility carries out th e training, equipment testing, and pe riodic drills described in the OSRP. The MMS regulations (30 CFR 254) requi re that all owners and operators of oil handling, storage, or transporta tion facilities located seawar d of the coastline submit an OSRP for approval.

MMS authority extends to faci lities located seaward of the coastline. The term “coastline” means the line of ordinary low wa ter along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and th e line marking the seaward limit of inland

waters. Facilities located inla nd of this line are subject to EPA, DOT, or USCG response plan requirements dependant upon the facility type and location. The term “facility” means any structure, group of structures, e quipment, or device (other than a vessel),

which is used for one or more of the fo llowing purposes: exploring for, drilling for, producing, storing, handling, transferring, proc essing, or transporting oil. A mobile offshore drilling unit is classified as a fac ility when engaged in drilling or downhole operations.

The USCG’s responsibilities duri ng a spill event is to ensure the effective and immediate removal or arrangement for removal of a discharge of oil or hazardous substance; mitigation or prevention of a substantial th reat of a discharge of oil or hazardous substance; consultation with aff ected trustees; direction or monitoring of all federal, state, and private actions during a spill response; and removal completion determinations.

Contingency Planning Oil-spill response planning in the United St ates is accomplished through a mandated set of interrelated plans. The ACP represents the third tier of the National Response Planning System and was mandated by OPA 90. The ACP’s cover subregional geographic areas. The ACP’s are a focal poi nt of response planning, providing detailed information on response procedures, prioriti es, and appropriate countermeasures. Offshore response and cleanup is preferable to shoreline cleanup; howev er, if an oil slick reaches the coastline it is expected that the specific shoreline cleanup countermeasures identified and prioritized in the appropriat e Area Contingency Plans (ACP’s) for various habitat types would be used. The MMS regulation at 30 CFR 254.2 requires that an OSRP must be submitted and approved before an operator can use a facility. As specified by OPA 90, the OSRP must be consis tent with the Nationa l Contingency Plan and the Area Contingency Plan(s).

The Gulf coastal area that falls within USCG District 8 is covered by the One Gulf Plan ACP, which includes separate Geographic Response Plans for areas covered by USCG Sector Corpus Christi, Sector Houston/Galv eston, Sector Port Ar thur, Sector Morgan City, Sector New Orleans, a nd Sector Mobile. The Miami ACP covers the remaining

Gulf coastal area. The ACP’s are written and maintained by Area Committees assembledfrom Federal, State, and local governmen tal agencies that have pollution response authority; nongovernmental pa rticipants may attend meetings and provide input. Response procedures identified within an AC P or its Geographic Response Plan(s) reflect the priorities and procedures agreed to by members of the Area Committees. The sensitivity of the contaminated shoreline is generally the most important factor in the development of cleanup recommendations.

The ACP’s applicable to the Gulf coastal area cover a vast geographical area. The differences in the response priorities and procedures among the various ACP’s or its Geographic Response Plans reflect the differe nces in the identified resources needing spill protection in the area covered by each ACP or its Geographic Response Plans. In the event of an actual spill, the ACP applicable to the poten tially impacted area would be utilized by the responsible party.

Spill Response The single most frequently recommended spill -response strategy for the areas identified for protection in all of the a pplicable ACP’s or it’s Geogra phic Response Plans is the use of a shoreline boom to deflect oil away from coastal resources such as seagrass beds, marinas, resting areas for migrat ory birds, bird and turtle nest ing areas, etc. If a shoreline is oiled, the selection of the type of shoreline remediation to be used will depend on the following: (1) the type and amount of oil on the shore; (2) the natu re of the affected coastline; (3) the depth of oil penetration into the sediments; (4) th e accessibility and the ability of vehicles to travel along the shoreline; (5) the po ssible ecological damage of the

treatment to the shoreline e nvironment; (6) weather conditions ; and (7) the current state

of the oil.

Mechanical response would be the preferred response to attempt to prevent oil from reaching shoreline areas. The USCG’s direction or monitoring of all federal, state, and private actions during a spill response will incl ude consultation with affected trustees regarding the selection of a ppropriate spill response tech niques and prioritization of potentially impacted resources during a spill response. Dispersant use and/or insitu burning in near shore areas would only be conducted if approval was granted by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, usually the US CG Captain of the Port, in consultation with the State and affected federal agencies , pursuant to the Nati onal Contingency Plan

Biological Issues

With the de-listing of the Bald Eagle on August 8, 2007, this informal consultation now includes seven species, including the brown pelican, the piping plover, the whooping crane, the Alabama beach mouse, the Perdido Key beach mouse, the loggerhead sea turtle and the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. Coastal oil spills from any source, under specific conditions, could result in seve re impacts to any of these listed species. However, the potential of impact of a coastal spill from a proposed action is reduced for some species by location (both species of beach mouse) or by seasonal absence from the proposed action area (piping plover, whoopi ng crane, loggerhead sea tur tle and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle).Brown pelican The only species with a year-round presence in the proposed action area is the brown pelican. These birds are found in coastal area s of each of the central and western Gulf coast states. Because of the year-round presen ce, this may be the species most vulnerable to coastal oil spills, and press coverage of oiled pelican clean-up ha s been a very visible reminder of past oil spills (most of which ar e not OCS-related). Pelicans do not generally occur in large groups and the small size of typical coastal spills associated with a proposed action would not be expected to imp act more than several individuals. Past spill response experience in recoveri ng pelicans and the location on th e Gulf coast of state-ofthe-art pelican response crews and facilities further reduces the potential impact of OCSrelated coastal spills.

Breeding colonies are the major exception to the typically more di spersed brown pelican population. Pelicans migrate to br eeding colonies from all along the coast, finding safety in numbers for nesting activi ties. The major colony at Breton Island off the Louisiana coast had 2000 nests in 2007. This was partic ularly noteworthy since Breton was severely impacted by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Pelican egg laying p eaks in March and April and eggs hatch a month later. Young pelicans fly at about 75 days. This time period represents the highest potential for impact fr om a coastal oil spill as so many pelicans are present in a small geographic area. Though th e 5-month window and compact area reduce the probability of OCS-related spill impact, s hould one occur, it could affect many birds. Fortunately, the number of estimated spills >1bbl are few (Table 4-38). MMS does not expect coastal OCS-related oil spills to jeopardize the Gulf Coast brown pelican population, which appears to be maintaining sustained growth.

Piping plover Piping plover are not present on the Gulf coast year-round (u sually) but overwinter and have designated critical habita t in all five Gulf coastal st ates. Plover begi n arriving on the Gulf coast in mid-July, though arrivals in crease through October. Northern migration begins in late February a nd most of the plovers are gone by May. Thus, for about 30 percent of the year, piping plover are not present on the coast a nd not susceptible to coastal oil spill impacts. When the plovers are present, an OCS-related coastal spill could impact the birds and their critical habitat. Ho wever, piping plover ar e not expected to be adversely affected due to the small numbers and size of estimated coastal spills and the mitigations to minimize impact. Preliminar y findings of the 2006 International Census indicate that overall winter numbers were very high with particularly high bird counts in

Texas.

Whooping crane Although the numbers of whooping cranes in the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge population have greatly increased from 57 in winter 2002-03 to 237 in winter 2006-07, this fragile population could be severely impacted from a co astal oil spill. The loss of only a few individuals of such a small group could have major implications. Since this population also represents the majority of the world’s free-ranging whooping cranes, avoidance of any disturbance is even more im portant. Coastal oil spills from OCS-relatedproposed actions are not expected to advers ely affect the Aransas whooping cranes for two primary reasons: 1) the birds are only pr esent on the Gulf coast for approximately half of the year, and 2) the Aransas Nati onal Wildlife Refuge and surrounding essential habitat for the whooping cranes is not in an ar ea of high probability for coastal oil spills. Since pipeline accidents are by far the greatest potential for OCS-relate d coastal oil spills, the areas of highest pipeline concentration (Galveston area in Texas and the Plaquemines Parish area in Louisiana) are the areas of highest probability for a coastal spill.

Alabama and Perdido Key beach mice The threat of impact to beach mice from a coastal spill resulting from a proposed action is discountable. There are no operations, including pipelines or oil tran sport, scheduled to occur Alabama or Florida coastal waters, wher e beach mice and their critical habitat are

located.

Loggerhead sea turtle For the purposes of this FWS consultation, peri ods of potential impact are restricted to the nesting season, which occurs from late April to early September, and the hatching season lasting from late June to mid-Nove mber. Thus, loggerhead sea turtles are only subject to possible coastal oil spill effects fo r approximately 60 percent of the year. Gulf coast loggerhead nests are primarily located in the Florida panhandl e, though nesting has been reported in other Gulf coast states. As there is no oil trans port or other operations expected in Florida or Alabama waters fr om a proposed action, th ere is negligible potential for impact from coastal oil spills to nesting turtles or ha tchlings on Florida or Alabama beaches. There has been no loggerhead nests recorded in L ouisiana in the last five years. Texas reported two loggerh ead nests in 2006 and three so far in 2007. Although numbers for Mississippi were not availa ble, numbers of nests in that state are expected to be very low. With a nesting a nd hatching season of less than seven months a year, extremely rare nesting occurrences, a nd low estimated numbers and volumes of oil spilled in coastal waters from a proposed act ions, MMS believes that the potential impact to nesting or hatchling lo ggerheads is discountable.

Kemp’s ridley As the most endangered sea turtle, Kemp’s ri dley nests were histor ically confined to

Rancho Nuevo in Mexico. Efforts in the last few decades to relocate nests and imprint hatchlings to the beach at South Padre Island, Texas, as well as mitigate turtle deaths in shrimp trawls, are showing signs of success. So far in 2007, 125 Kemp’s ridley nests

have been counted on South Padre Island wh ich is the highest number since recording began in the 1980’s. Fifteen nests were found in the Galveston County area, which is also the highest count for that area.

MMS believes that coastal oil spills as a result of proposed acti ons are not likely to adversely affect Kemp’s ridley nesting and ha tchling sea turtles for several reasons: 1) the nesting season on the Texas coast for Kemp’s ridley sea turtles is early April through mid-June. This means that the nesting turtle s would only be subject to coastal oil spill impact for approximately 20 percent of the year ; 2) the South Padre Is land area is not in the area of highest pipeline placements and the subsequent highest probability for acoastal oil spill (Galveston area); 3) nest s and hatchlings on South Padre Island are closely monitored and hatchlings are generally protected from impact as they leave the nest and crawl to the ocean; 4) nesters and hatchlings on Galveston beaches are in the area with higher coastal oil sp ill probabilities. However, the females are only on the beach long enough to nest and recent observer program developments have resulted in the eggs being removed from the nest for hatching elsewhere. Thus, the eggs and hatchlings are not potentially subject to coas tal oil spill affects. Even in the areas of higher pipeline concentration, oil spills >1bbl are expected to occur rarely.

## Appendix C

Attachment 3

MMS Concurrence Letter

## Appendix C

Attachment 4 FWS Correspondence Re: Supplemental EIS

# Appendix C

Attachment 5

NMFS Concurrence Letter

# Appendix C

Attachment 6

BOEM Email on Reinitiated ConsultationFrom: Epperson, Deborah [mailto:Deborah.Epperson@boem.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 12:22 PM

To: Donald Evans

Cc: Ensz, Holli

Subject: RE: NMFS Biological Opinion for GOM

Don,

As we discussed, the current consultation with NMFS was reinitiated following the DWH event and we are
working with NMFS on a new consultation that I am h oping will be completed by the end of this
year. There were no new species or critical habita ts identified and we are still consulting with NMFS on sperm whales, all 5 species of sea turtles, and the gulf sturgeon.

Please let me know if you need more information.

Deborah

From: Donald Evans [mailto:DOEV@statoil.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 11:44 AM

To: Epperson, Deborah

Subject: NMFS Biological Opinion for GOM

Deborah,

Thanks for your time this morning discussing the cu rrent NMFS biological opinion and the new

consultation for the GOM which is currently open an d covers all three planning areas (western, central

and eastern). No new endangered species have been i ncluded in the new consultation and air quality

impacts are not expected to adversely impact any th reatened or endangered species or critical habitats

.

Thanks again,

Donald P. Evans

Lead HSE - Environmental

Statoil – DPNA UON HSE

t: 713 485 2203

m: 832 788 9282

e: doev@statoil.com

2103 CityWest Blvd

Suite 800

Houston, TX 77042USA

www.statoil.com

 Please consider the environment before printing th is email.

--------------------------------------------------- ---------------- The information contained in this message may be CO NFIDENTIAL and is
intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised u se, dissemination of the
information or copying of this message is prohibite d. If you are not the
addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete
this message.
Thank you